Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Justice

The Secretary of State was asked—

Prison Capacity

Katherine Fletcher: What steps his Department is taking to increase prison capacity.

Ben Everitt: What steps his Department is taking to increase prison capacity.

Lucy Frazer: We have committed more than £4 billion to deliver 18,000 additional prison places across the prison estate by the mid-2020s to support the Prime Minister’s commitment to crack down on crime. Those 18,000 prison places include the 10,000 places being made available through the construction of four new prisons, the expansion of a number of other prisons, refurbishment of the existing prison estate, and the completion of our ongoing prison builds at HMP Five Wells and Glen Parva.

Katherine Fletcher: Wymott bowling club has been based at HMP Wymott, near Ulnes Walton, for about 42 years. It is a fantastic part of the community, with a library in a portakabin because the old building associated with the prison estate had to be knocked down. It has some big ideas for a really good community resource, but it needs to know when the Ministry of Justice will finalise its plans. Can my hon. and learned Friend share when the community centre can have some certainty and get its exciting plans under way?

Lucy Frazer: I am happy to do that. I really understand the value of community centres, and I am aware of the brilliant plans that Ms Kitching, the chair of Wymott bowling club, has for a new community centre. Work is under way to determine appropriate sites for other prisons, and we need to ensure that we do not release land we own that we might use in the future. We expect to make a decision on this in spring 2021. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that my officials are planning to meet Ms Kitching in mid-December to discuss this matter in more detail, and I would be happy to keep my hon. Friend updated.

Ben Everitt: Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm what types of offender will be prioritised for these new prison places and that the most dangerous criminals will be kept off our streets?

Lucy Frazer: We anticipate that the additional places will deliver a mix of places based on population type and category, which will enable us to ensure that prisoners are kept in the right security category according to their risk assessment. In September, the Lord Chancellor published “A Smarter Approach to Sentencing”, which sets out our plans for a system that protects the public. These reforms will ensure that serious sexual and violent offenders and those who are dangerous are kept in prison for longer.

David Lammy: England and Wales already have the highest imprisonment rate in western Europe. Shocking figures released last week show that the prison population is going to explode from 79,000 to 100,000 by 2026. Overcrowded, understaffed and crumbling prisons can never be safe. In 2016, the Conservatives pledged 10,000 extra prison places by 2020, but they have only managed 200. They pledged another 10,000 last year, but the Ministry of Justice says that the business case has not yet been approved. Trust matters in politics. It is fatally damaged when pledges are missed and promises are broken. The Secretary of State said last week that he would provide 18,000 new prison places. Why should anyone believe him?

Lucy Frazer: The right hon. Member mentioned the fact that we had overcrowding. I would like to point out that overcrowded accommodation has gone down since the Labour Government in 2004. He also mentioned the increase in the prison population. That is not something that has just occurred under this Government. Labour failed to reduce the prison population, which increased by nearly 25,000 between 1997 and 2010. We have already made significant progress on the development of two prisons, and we have made a commitment to build others. Those plans are well under way, and we will be delivering them.

Government and Parliament: Relationship with Courts

Michael Fabricant: What plans he has to review the relationship between Government, Parliament and (a) the Supreme Court and (b) other courts; and if he will make a statement.

Robert Buckland: As set out in our manifesto, we are looking at the broader aspects of our constitution, including the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts. Our independent courts and legal system are respected around the world, and I would like to protect our world-class judiciary from being drawn into political matters. I am interested in reviewing the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and I will update the House on arrangements in due course.

Michael Fabricant: My right hon. and learned Friend will share with me—indeed, I suspect the whole House will share with me—the respect we have for our Supreme Court and its judgments. Nevertheless, it is called in from time to time to look at issues that are highly political and highly contentious. Does he not agree with me that we urgently need to establish some  sort of framework so that we can decide precisely what the Supreme Court should be looking at and what issues are perhaps beyond or different from its remit?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I understand the concern that he outlines. Of course, the Supreme Court does not of its own volition investigate matters. It hears cases and answers the questions before it on arguable points of law of general public importance. However, as I have already said, I think it is important that we look again at the balance. As a full-throated supporter of an institution that brings together the three jurisdictions of our United Kingdom, I want to make sure that its future is indeed a secure and a bright one.

Joanna Cherry: The terms of reference for the Government’s review of the Human Rights Act 1998, which were announced yesterday, include the relationship between domestic courts and the European convention on human rights. But of course human rights themselves, as opposed to the Act, are not a reserved matter, and Scotland’s courts play an important role in supervising human rights protections under the Scotland Act 1998. So can the Lord Chancellor give me a cast-iron guarantee that the British Government are not planning to interfere with the competence of the Scottish Parliament in respect of human rights and the jurisdiction of Scotland’s separate legal system in enforcing human rights protections?

Robert Buckland: I am happy to assure the hon. and learned Lady that the terms of reference have been carefully couched to make it clear that we have distinctive contexts and natures in each of the jurisdictions, and that they will be considered where that is necessary. I am also content that where there are particular questions on devolved matters or of a devolved nature, the independent review will be approaching or inviting engagement from all appropriate parties. Of course, it is only the first stage in making recommendations. I can assure her that any proposals that will come forward will of course involve the fullest consultation with the devolved Administrations and, indeed, of course the fullest respect for the devolved settlement.

Bob Neill: Can I welcome the tone of my right hon. and learned Friend’s statement and his very clear commitment to supporting the independence of the judiciary? That is an absolute and fundamental principle of our constitution, and should never be undermined by anyone. Can I also welcome the terms of reference of the review, which are balanced and measured in relation to the Human Rights Act and, in particular, the quality of the panel that has been appointed? I happen to have known Sir Peter Gross throughout my professional career, and he is known as both a man and a judge of the highest independence and integrity, as are the other members of the panel. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend can reassure us that they will have a completely free hand to act as they think is appropriate within the terms of reference, without any pressure on their independence from any quarter.

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee is absolutely right to highlight the impeccable credentials of the chair, Sir Peter Gross, not  only as a distinguished former Lord Justice of Appeal, but of course as the judge responsible for international relations: he understands very well the issue of judicial diplomacy, which is very much at the heart of this review. I am glad that the geographical representation also includes an academic from the Republic of Ireland, because it is my fundamental belief that we need to look at the position in all parts of our islands to respect not only the human rights settlement, but the Belfast agreement.

David Lammy: The independent review of the Human Rights Act will have an enormous impact on the basic rights and freedoms that British citizens enjoy. The Government caused outrage by failing to publish submissions to the independent review of administrative law. Transparency and accountability are fundamental parts of our democracy. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that both the submissions to the human rights review and the review itself will be published in full?

Robert Buckland: I think perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is to be forgiven for his descent into hyperbole when it comes to the ambit of this review. It is all about the mechanism, and comments about fundamental rights being affected are way wide of the mark. First, with regard to the process in the review, it is a matter for the review as to what precise submissions it publishes, but I can assure him that the outcome of the review and the Government’s position will of course be published in full, so that he will be able and others will be able to digest it and we will be able to debate the matter.

Court Cases: Backlog

Jeff Smith: What progress he has made on tackling backlogs in HM Courts and Tribunals Service.

Seema Malhotra: What progress he has made on tackling backlogs in HM Courts and Tribunals Service.

Laura Trott: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the backlog of court cases that has accumulated as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

Chris Philp: Justice systems around the world have been profoundly affected by the coronavirus pandemic, but I am pleased that the court system in England and Wales has been among the world’s leaders in recovering from that pandemic. Magistrates court disposals are now exceeding receipts, and 260 Crown Court jury rooms are operating—more than we had before the pandemic. Substantial additional resources, both people and money, have been put into the system, to ensure that our recovery continues to be world-leading.

Jeff Smith: The Lowry theatre in Salford is being used as a nightingale court, which I think is a good idea and model because it brings income to a venue that has been hit hard by the crisis. However, it is one of only 16 courts that were up and running by the end of November, and the chief executive of the Courts Service  has said that we need 200 to clear the backlog. What number does the Minister think we now need to clear the backlog?

Chris Philp: As the hon. Gentleman says, 16 nightingale courts are up and running, and the Ministry of Justice has secured a total of just over £110 million in additional funding from the Treasury, to support not just those nightingale courts, but many others as well. We intend to open further nightingale courts in the future. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the use of the Lowry theatre—we all do—and as I said, up to 260 Crown Court jury rooms are now open and operational, which is more than we had before the pandemic.

Seema Malhotra: The backlog for individual cases in employment tribunals has already passed the post-2008 financial crisis record, with 37,000 workers in the queue. Analysis by Citizens Advice suggests that if that continues to grow at the current rate, the number of outstanding claims could pass 500,000 by spring. When will the Minister take action at the scale necessary, and stop the Chancellor’s jobs crisis becoming a justice crisis, by targeting much needed support to employment tribunals?

Chris Philp: As I said, we are putting a great deal of extra resources into the justice system, including employment tribunals, to ensure that we recover from coronavirus. There is £110 million in total extra this year, and a further 1,600 staff of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service across the entire system. The hon. Lady mentions employment tribunals, and I am pleased to report to the House that since the beginning of October, disposal rates in the employment tribunals have been running at 740 a week. That is higher than the level of disposals pre-pandemic, which was 718 a week. We hope and expect that that recovery will continue.

Laura Trott: There has been a welcome focus from the Department on domestic violence and sexual assault cases, including the landmark recent Domestic Abuse Bill. We know that a delay in bringing those types of cases to court can lead to a significant increase in attrition rates, and therefore convictions. Will Ministers focus particularly on bringing those types of cases to court quickly, and will they meet me and the Kent police and crime commissioner, Matthew Scott, to discuss what more we can do?

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that important area, and it is certainly a matter that Ministers are mindful of and focused on. The judiciary decided early on in the pandemic to prioritise domestic violence protection orders, so that even when much of the court system had stopped functioning in the immediate aftermath of the first lockdown, DVPOs continued. As judges consider which cases to list, they are mindful of my hon. Friend’s point about protecting vulnerable witnesses and victims. In addition, we have committed £28 million extra to support domestic abuse services, and we have provided £800,000 to the finding legal options for women survivors project, which provides free legal support to victims—my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) has been leading on that work. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and the Kent police and crime commissioner, Matthew Scott,  who is doing a fantastic job for the people of Kent, and I look forward to that meeting happening in the near future.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure there must be a link to the question there somewhere.

Alex Cunningham: The Lord Chancellor was keen to talk up his court successes in his statement on Thursday, yet the situation remains dire in many parts of his Department, according to answers to my written questions. The number of effective trials was down from 19,000 in 2010 to 12,000 last year, and that was before covid; expenditure on recorder sitting days has halved from £19 million to less than £10 million since 2018; and disposals in care proceedings within the legally required 26 weeks have collapsed to just 34%. This is about people’s lives, so will the Minister outline when victims, witnesses and families will get the court system they desperately need and justice will be properly served?

Chris Philp: The shadow Minister makes reference to a reduction of trial numbers last year. Of course, that is because crime is significantly down since 2010, when Labour left office. If there are fewer crimes being committed, there will be fewer trials in consequence; that is a symptom of success. The outstanding case load in 2019 was in fact at a 10-year low.
As I have said already, we are fully committed to making sure that the justice system recovers from the pandemic. That is why we have more Crown court jury trial rooms open now than we did before the pandemic, we are consulting on having extended operating hours to allow more cases to be heard, we have put £110 million of extra money in, we have recruited 1,600 extra staff—[Interruption.] It is working, as evidenced by the fact that there are more magistrates court trials now than there were before the pandemic and disposals are exceeding receipts. We will continue this work and make sure that the recovery in this jurisdiction continues to lead the world.

Homophobia in Football

Damian Collins: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on bringing forward legislative proposals to strengthen sentencing to tackle homophobia in football.

Alex Chalk: All hate crimes, including where motivated by homophobia, are unacceptable. The courts already have powers to treat hostility based on sexual orientation as a factor that aggravates the seriousness of an offence. However, hate crime laws in England and Wales are complex and are spread across different statutes. That is why the Government gave a commitment to carry out a comprehensive review of hate crime legislation. That review is currently under way.

Damian Collins: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer and in particular for the review being done by the Law Commission at the moment, which is looking specifically at the incidence of homophobic abuse in sports grounds. As the Minister will know, the Football (Offences) Act 1991 defines “racialist” abuse—that is  the word it uses, which shows how old the Act is—but not homophobic abuse. Clearly, there is no space for abuse of any kind in a sports environment. In particular, match day stewards and officials seem unclear of their powers in these situations.

Alex Chalk: I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on this issue. It has been noted and appreciated. He is absolutely right; from memory, it is question 57 of the Law Commission’s review of this precise issue. I hope that that work progresses. The extraordinary thing about football is that so much of an advance has been seen in respect of racism, yet homophobia still seems to exist, although I have to say that there is much better work going on in the women’s game than the men’s. The men need to catch up.

Covid-19 in Prisons

Catherine West: What steps the Government are taking to respond to covid-19 outbreaks in prisons.

Lucy Frazer: Throughout the pandemic, we have worked really closely with Public Health England to respond to any outbreaks in prison and to keep our staff and those in our custody safe. We are taking a number of measures, which include compartmentalisation—keeping separate the vulnerable, those who are symptomatic and those who are coming into prisons from outside—as well as increased testing and more use of personal protective equipment, including face masks, where it is appropriate.

Catherine West: During these tough times of covid, health and safety is more important than ever. Will the Minister consider introducing a hotline for staff so that they can report health and safety breaches, particularly around the covid question but in other regards as well, given that prisons are a difficult place to work?

Lucy Frazer: I thank the hon. Lady very much for her suggestion. There are a number of hotlines available to staff. We work very closely with the unions on a local level, as well as a national level, but I am very happy to take away her suggestion to see whether it is necessary.

Youth Justice: Racial Disparity

Stephen Morgan: What progress he has made on tackling racial disparity in the youth justice system since the publication of the Lammy review in September 2017.

Sarah Owen: What progress he has made on tackling racial disparity in the youth justice system since the publication of the Lammy review in September 2017.

Wes Streeting: What progress he has made on tackling racial disparity in the youth justice system since the publication of the Lammy review in September 2017.

Robert Buckland: We have taken important action across the review recommendations. For the three recommendations  specific to youth, we have promoted parental and community involvement in referral order panels and evaluated an update of the Youth Justice Board’s ethnic disproportionality toolkit. Beyond that, we have now ended automatic disclosure of youth cautions on criminal records. We have put equalities plans in all young offenders institutions and are piloting the Chance to Change alternative to charge, which was one of the recommendations of the review. However, there is no quick fix and more work will continue to be done.

Stephen Morgan: With fewer than half of the Lammy review’s recommendations having been enacted and with many others from many other reviews into deaths in custody still outstanding, what can the Secretary of State do to assure black, Asian and minority ethnic communities that the Government are not just dragging their feet on racial disparity in the justice system?

Robert Buckland: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is far from the case. Indeed, 16 recommendations have been completed. There are two recommendations that we did not take up, but of the 17 that are still in progress, we aim to complete 11 within six to 12 months. I am being told that the further six will take slightly longer. That is not good enough for me and I will be going back to my officials to make sure we make earlier progress. I can assure him that, as overall numbers go down in the youth estate, what concerns me is that we are still seeing a disproportionate number of BAME children being held in custody, even though the overall numbers are now dramatically fewer. There is clearly more work to be done on that front.

Sarah Owen: The Lammy review was published in 2017 and it said that racial inequality and unfairness runs rife throughout our country’s justice system. At that time, zero Supreme Court judges were black. That number is still zero. In fact, not a single Supreme Court judge is from a black, Asian and minority ethnic background. Why does the Secretary of State think that is and what are his Government doing to change it?

Robert Buckland: Like the hon. Lady, I want to see far more people from a diverse and BAME background in the senior judiciary. The truth is that the senior judiciary is often a product of the supply into the legal professions some 20 or more years ago, when we know things were not as promising when it comes to diversity as they are now at the Bar, in solicitors’ practices, or for legal executives and Government lawyers, for example. However, we cannot use that as an excuse, which is why I am working hard with the senior judiciary and the chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission, as part of the Judicial Diversity Forum. We are meeting again this week and in my convening role I am pushing all sides, the Bar Council and the Law Society, to come up with more plans and more engagement, so we can help and support BAME candidates ahead of any application processes to level that playing field.

Wes Streeting: In a 2020 update on progress against the Lammy review, the Secretary of State said:
“It is crucial, if everyone is to have confidence in our system, that the people working in it reflect the diversity of Britain today.”
Yet in written answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), the Ministry of Justice confirms that there are zero BAME staff working for the Youth  Justice Board outside London. What is the Secretary of State going to do to make sure the system reflects the communities those people are serving?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know the new chair of the Youth Justice Board, Keith Fraser, will be particularly concerned about that figure. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that in many other areas we are seeing BAME representation higher than the national average. For example, there is an extremely encouraging figure for the probation service. I will look at that particular issue and discuss it with the chair of the YJB, because clearly he feels strongly about BAME issues and he will want to take appropriate action to see what we can do to improve that.

Peter Kyle: In 2016, 22% of kids sentenced were black and minority ethnic. Now, it is 27%. Some 41% of youth prisoners were black and minority ethnic. Now, it is over half. The proportion of black and minority ethnic young people subject to the use of force in youth prisons has gone up from 41% to 48% since the Lammy review. This Government have been in power for 10 years. It has been two years since the Lammy review. It is not that not enough progress has been made; things are going backwards. Why should anybody have faith that this lot can sort it out?

Robert Buckland: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he is just wrong about that—totally wrong. In the last 10 years, there has been a fall of 83% in the number of children receiving a caution or a sentence, and last year there was a fall of 19%. That means in actual numbers of lives and families, the number of children and BAME children affected is reducing. I accept the point about disproportionality—I acknowledged it earlier—but it is a calumny to say that the Government are inactive or uninterested in the issue. We have made incredible progress in 10 years. The child population in our young offender institutions or other institutions is now down to about 500. That is a generational low, and he should pay tribute to the Government for presiding over such dramatic change.

Child Trust Funds: Children with Learning Disabilities

Stephen Crabb: What steps his Department is taking to improve access to child trust funds for parents of young adults with learning disabilities.

Alex Chalk: As a young person turns 18, the contents of their child trust fund belong to them and them alone, whether or not they have a learning disability, which is an important point of principle, but for those loving parents who, for good reason, want legal authority to access those funds, we want to make the process more cost-effective and more straightforward. As a result, fees can now be waived in appropriate cases and we have set up a working group to work quickly alongside the judiciary to review the process, with a view to streamlining it while maintaining vital safeguards.

Stephen Crabb: I thank the Minister for that answer, the work that he is doing on this issue and the letter he wrote to me this week about my constituents who are  affected. As he knows, around 200,000 disabled children could be affected by this in the coming eight years, unable to access their Government-backed child trust fund, so I urge him to continue the good work that he is doing and to really make sure that applications to the Court of Protection are the least onerous possible for the parents of these disabled children.

Alex Chalk: I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that issue on behalf of his constituents. He makes an incredibly important point. We have a duty to make sure that the rights of those individuals are maintained, but it is also important that, when there are loving parents and all they want to achieve is the best for their children, they are able to access that money in the interests of their children with the minimum of fuss, the minimum of bother and, frankly, the minimum of expense.

Female Offender Strategy

Debbie Abrahams: What progress he has made on implementing the female offender strategy.

Tony Lloyd: What progress he has made on implementing the female offender strategy.

Lucy Frazer: The female offender strategy launched an ambitious programme to improve outcomes for female offenders and make society safer by tackling the causes of offending. It will take several years to deliver, but, two years on, we are making good progress. We have invested over £5 million in 30 women’s services across England and Wales, and we are in the process of allocating a further £2.5 million to increase the financial stability of those providing these important services.

Debbie Abrahams: Under the Bail Act 1976, the courts can remand an adult to prison for their own “protection” or a child for their own “welfare”. This even happens when the criminal charge cannot result in a conviction. We are restricting a person’s liberty—usually someone with complex mental health needs, and often women—because of the failure to provide the appropriate treatment, care or support in the community. Will the Minister support the repeal of this outdated, offensive and draconian power, which is contrary not only to human rights, but to human decency?

Lucy Frazer: The hon. Member will know that we are looking at the Mental Health Act 1983 provisions and reviewing them. We never think that it should be appropriate to use prison as a place of safety. Combined with that, we recognise the need to tackle mental health issues in all those who come through the justice system, particularly women, because women have a high incidence of mental health needs. We will be looking carefully at how we can commit further funds to ensure that women and men get the services they need to help to turn their lives around.

Tony Lloyd: Weknow that the majority of women sentenced for non-violent crimes are given short prison sentences, which are totally ineffective in rehabilitation but can split up families, put children into care and lead  to eviction from the home—all things that we should not want to happen. Women’s centres are successful, as we know in Greater Manchester. They are cost-effective, but also much better in human terms and better for society. Can the Minister guarantee that we will enhance the investment in those centres and get women who should not be in prison out of prison and into the kind of care that makes a difference to them and to society?

Lucy Frazer: The hon. Member makes a very important point: we need to ensure that we support women not only in custody, but outside it. He will have heard me mention that we are in the midst of a £2.5 million funding exercise, in which some of the money will go to community centres. However, we are doing other things as well, such as improving pre-sentence reports to ensure that women get the right order and go into the community, not into custody, where that is appropriate. He will also have heard me announce recently our first residential women’s centre, which will be in Wales and which we are progressing with. It is for those women who are on the cusp of custody, but whom we do not want to put in custody where we can avoid that, so that they can instead be ordered by the court to go into a residential women’s centre, which will better look after their needs.

Lyn Brown: The female offenders strategy published in 2018 by the then Justice Secretary and Prime Minister got it right. One woman in every three in prison self-harms. They are twice as likely as men to have mental health needs and more likely to have drug problems. According to those Ministers, short-term prison sentences
“do more harm than good”,
but last year, half of all women’s sentences were of  less than three months, and the plan is to increase  the women’s population by 40%. Why have these Ministers so quickly abandoned the promises made by their predecessors?

Lucy Frazer: I refute the claim that we are changing our policy in any way. As the police are funded to search out and investigate further crime with our 20,000 additional officers on the beat, it is inevitable that some further women will go to prison as a result, and it is our obligation to ensure that there is a safe place for them to go. We, too, are concerned about women coming through short sentences, but the judiciary makes those independent decisions on short sentences, and we are ensuring that when people do come through on short sentences, they will have specific probation officers looking after them in the new, reformed probation system to ensure that those women, and men, get the support that they need.

Desecration of Corpses: Criminalisation

Kieran Mullan: What assessment his Department has made of the potential merits of criminalising the desecration of a corpse.

Alex Chalk: The bodies of those who have died should be treated with dignity and respect. Where that does not happen, the criminal law can intervene and there are a number of offences that may apply: preventing the lawful burial of a body, outraging public decency, perverting  the course of justice, removing human tissue without consent and so on. We will of course keep the law under review.

Kieran Mullan: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am supporting the campaign of the mother of Helen McCourt, whom we know in this place for successfully campaigning on Helen’s law, but who is equally determined, while understanding the points the Minister has made, to see further reform so that the criminal justice system adequately reflects how we would feel if one of our loved ones was desecrated after death. Will he agree to meet me and discuss with Helen McCourt’s mother further steps we might be able to take?

Alex Chalk: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that excellent point and for paying tribute to Mrs McCourt, whose brave campaign has led to Helen’s law, as he rightly indicates, getting on to the statute book, having recently received Royal Assent, in large part because of her campaigning activity. We keep the matter under review, and I would be delighted to meet him, as he suggests.

Drug Use in Prisons

David Simmonds: What steps his Department is taking to tackle drug use in prisons.

Daniel Poulter: What steps his Department is taking to reduce drug dependency in prisons.

Lucy Frazer: Justice colleagues work closely with our Health partners, and since April 2018 a national partnership agreement on prison healthcare in England has been in place. Tackling drugs is a priority within that agreement. In April last year, we published the national prison drug strategy, which focuses on three strands: tackling drugs in prison by restricting supply, reducing demand and helping to ensure that we turn people’s lives around by building recovery from drugs and substance misuse.

David Simmonds: I know that the Lord Chancellor and his Department have previously made known their support for the Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan). Given that the Bill would make such a difference in this area, will my hon. and learned Friend reaffirm that support today and give an indication of the timescale according to which we might expect the legislation to appear?

Lucy Frazer: I am so glad that my hon. Friend has raised this question, because we wholly support the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan). It is going to help us to tackle illicit substance misuse and help people to get their lives back on track by identifying who is taking drugs and how we can better support them. I am pleased to note that the Bill is scheduled for consideration on Report and Third Reading on 22 January, and, should it receive Royal Assent, we will be implementing the provisions at the earliest opportunity.

Daniel Poulter: As the Minister will be aware, it is equally as important to ensure that there is proper rehabilitation and support on substance dependency when people are released from prison. That is equally important in ensuring that we break the cycle of reoffending, but, far too often, arrangements are not in place adequately to support people once they are released. What can she do to reassure me that the Government are taking this issue seriously and will put in place better arrangements to support substance misusers with dependency issues once they are released from prison?

Lucy Frazer: My hon. Friend raises a really important question. We are doing a number of things, and I shall highlight two of them. First, as I mentioned, in relation to our probation services, we are getting that help to people earlier, so that a probation officer will be working with a prisoner on his or her release at an earlier stage, so as to help them to get that support organised in the community. The second thing that we are doing, working closely with NHS England, is rolling out our Reconnect service. That service links up the healthcare in the prison with the healthcare in the community, which are not always aligned. The Reconnect service is being rolled out across the country.

Sentencing Regime for 17-year-olds

James Gray: What plans he has to reform the sentencing regime for 17-year-olds.

Lucy Frazer: I thank my hon. Friend for his correspondence regarding the reforms in the sentencing White Paper. All offenders, including 17-year-olds, who commit the most serious offences and who pose a risk to the public should serve time in custody that reflects the seriousness of their offending. To reduce the gap between the sentencing of older children and younger adults for murder, we plan to replace the blanket starting point of 12 years for murder committed by a child with a sliding scale to reflect age and the severity of the offence.

James Gray: Young Ellie Gould was brutally murdered in her own home in Calne in my constituency last year. Her assailant, Thomas Griffiths, was given a sentence of 12 and a half years because he was 17. The sentence was further ameliorated by the fact that he did not bring the weapon to the murder scene, but picked up a kitchen knife at the scene. He was 18 when he was convicted and given 12 and a half years. I very much welcome the fact that the Minister is considering this matter. Does she not agree that 12 and a half years for a crime of that sort committed by a boy aged 17 years and eight months is woefully inadequate? He should have got the 15 to 25 years he would have got had he been an adult.

Lucy Frazer: I cannot begin to imagine what Ellie Gould’s parents must have been through. In addition to the point that I made about introducing a sliding scale to reflect age and severity, I want to make it clear that we are considering a particular minimum threshold for those who are 17. My hon. Friend mentioned the knife already being present at the scene of crime, in the home. He will know that the Sentencing Council has produced  guidelines for judges on domestic abuse, which outline that the domestic setting of the offending behaviour makes it more serious. As he knows, these are matters that we are looking at in our sentencing White Paper.

Community Sentence Treatment Requirements

Sally-Ann Hart: What steps the Government are taking to increase the use of community sentence treatment requirements.

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend is right to raise community sentence treatment requirements as an important area to push, expand and develop. The Government firmly believe that, where someone has mental health problems, or drug or alcohol addiction causing the offending behaviour, treating the causes of the offending is very often a much better sentence than a short custodial term in terms of rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. So we certainly intend to expand the roll-out of these. They operate already in 14 areas and we intend to make sure that half the country is covered for mental health treatment through CSTRs by 2023-24. We are looking at other ways in which we can speed up the roll-out even further.

Sally-Ann Hart: The new probation system is set to be in place in the next few months, with unpaid work and key programmes to stop criminals reoffending to be delivered by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service from next June. Seetec has recently been awarded a Ministry of Justice contract for a co-financing organisation activity hub in the south-east region, to deliver support to help offenders reintegrate back into society. The hub will be based in Chatham, with a satellite provision in my constituency at St Leonards-on-Sea. Can my hon. Friend confirm that there is still a role for the private sector in offender rehabilitation, even if not by community rehabilitation companies?

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend asks a good question. CRCs are being transitioned out and the probation service will take over organising this activity, but within that there will be opportunities for private sector, or indeed charitable sector, organisations to bid to provide certain kinds of activity and certain kinds of rehabilitation work via the dynamic framework. We envisage eventually spending about £100 million a year on procuring these services via the dynamic framework. Any organisation, such as the one she mentions, that has something to offer and can help with rehabilitation is, of course, strongly encouraged to bid for those services to make sure we are drawing on the full range of available services as we try to rehabilitate offenders and build a better life for their future and protect our constituents as well.

Lindsay Hoyle: We are not going to Greater Manchester, as we have him here—welcome, Andrew Gwynne.

Topical Questions

Andrew Gwynne: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Robert Buckland: Justice is a vital public service and a cornerstone of our success as a society, which is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced huge investment in the system as part of his recent spending review. Part of that money will go towards the recovery and restoration of justice from the effects of covid-19, notably in the Crown courts, and to support victims as they make their difficult journeys through the system, including the family courts and tribunals. The spending review announced £105 million for the maintenance of courts and tribunals, and there was also £4 billion to build back better in the prison estate, with 18,000 additional places in the pipeline plan for the mid-2020s, helping us to deliver modern, green prisons that can be launching pads for rehabilitation. We are moving at pace with the first of our new prisons, HMP Five Wells, which is opening in 2022, while continuously increasing resources for the maintenance of our existing prison estate. This investment continues to deliver on the Government’s crime agenda, keeping the public safe, delivering a green revolution and bringing our prisons into the 21st century.

Andrew Gwynne: I thank the Justice Secretary for that, but judicial review is the only way in which the public can challenge the Government when they believe the Government have acted unlawfully. It is important that we keep that protection in place for the public to hold the Government to account, so will he commit today to fully publishing the independent review of administrative law?

Robert Buckland: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the central importance of judicial review, and he will remember that that is set out in the terms of reference. The review will report shortly, the Government will respond and the whole documentation will be published. The question of submissions to the review is a matter for the review, but I assure him that the outcome will, of course, be published as part of the Government’s policy position in due course.

Greg Smith: Last week, a three-week consultation was launched on proposals for a new prison adjacent to Grendon and Spring Hill prisons in my constituency. With nearby communities already dealing with massive pressures and parish councils overstretched with day-to-day issues with the construction of things such as HS2, three weeks is just not long enough to ensure that everyone has their voice heard. So will my right hon. and learned Friend commit to extending the consultation, so that everybody in my constituency can have their say?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he met my colleague the Minister of State for Prisons and Probation at the end of November to discuss the issue of the consultation. I know the site well, having visited both Grendon and Spring Hill, and I pay tribute to the staff and, indeed, to the community for supporting the prisons that exist in that part of his constituency. We are considering all comments and suggestions sent to us through the consultation before we submit any outline planning application. I can assure him that the local community will also have an opportunity to provide further feedback once a planning application  is submitted. I am happy to extend the public consultation and my officials are in communication with the local council regarding that.

Joanna Cherry: Back to the independent review of the Human Rights Act. The Lord Chancellor has said that, after 20 years, it is time to see whether the Act is working effectively, but the terms of reference do not actually contain any reference to an analysis of whether it is working effectively. Recently the Joint Committee on Human Rights found that most black people living in the United Kingdom believe that their human rights are not equally protected compared with those of white people. That is a shocking finding. Does not that finding alone justify a proper examination of whether the Act is working effectively and, if so, why is that not in the terms of reference?

Robert Buckland: The hon. and learned Lady knows that I gave evidence to the Committee of which she is a member about a week or so ago and acknowledged the important point made by the Committee. I think it was important for us to set up a very focused review as to the machinery of the Human Rights Act. It is not about the rights themselves; it is about the way in which they interact with our domestic law and the interplay, therefore looking in particular at sections 2, 3 and 4, for example, of the Human Rights Act. However, I am sure that these wider issues will become part of the debate as we see the recommendations come forward and as this place has an opportunity to play its part in those deliberations.

Damien Moore: I commend my right hon. and learned Friend and his Department for the minimal impact that the covid pandemic has had on our courts system. Can I ask when it will return to normal? Can I also ask that he review contingencies should they be needed in the very near future?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend can be reassured that the Courts and Tribunals Service is working daily to review its plans. I am sure that he will be glad to note that, in the magistrates courts, we are now exceeding receipts and we expect the position to return to pre-covid levels by about Easter time or the early summer. The position of the Crown court is more challenging, but the funding that we have obtained through the spending review will allow us to start dealing with the backlog. We also constantly review the social distancing measures. The current assumptions are that social distancing will apply until the end of June. If there is any progress on that front, clearly we will recalibrate, which will give us even more capacity.

Steve McCabe: The chief constable of West Midlands police, MPs, local councillors and others have all expressed concern about the large number of people being released from jails all around the country to unsuitable exempt accommodation in Birmingham. How can that possibly help with rehabilitation and getting these people back on the straight and narrow?

Robert Buckland: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to note that, throughout this pandemic, the Ministry of Justice has funded accommodation support for people  who otherwise would be released into rough sleeping and homelessness. Indeed, we are working on plans as result of the spending review to scale up and improve approved premises and the other type of accommodation that can house in an appropriate way people who are released from custody. I shall furnish the House with an update as soon as it is received, but he can be assured that we are working on this issue because we recognise the scale of the problem.

Imran Ahmad Khan: The Criminal Cases Review Commission is the only body in its area of jurisdiction with the authority to send cases back to an appeal court. It is imperative that this process must not be delayed, as it has the propensity to overturn cases and clear the names of those innocent of conviction. Can my right hon. and learned Friend outline the steps that he is taking to ensure that the CCRC enacts its duty in a timely manner, especially for more sensitive cases, including those of our frontline workers and police officers, such as my constituent Danny Major? Mr Major has been miserably let down by the CCRC.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Unfortunately, questions are meant to be short and punchy. We cannot have a statement beforehand. Minister, can you deal with that, please?

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. I understand his consternation on behalf of his constituent and his wish that that case in particular be dealt with speedily. No doubt the commission will have paid attention to his concern. We have recently invested significantly in the commission, with hundreds of thousands of pounds in capital funding to ensure that its IT is up to scratch. It is within a whisker of reaching its target of 36 weeks as the average time taken to deal with a case, and of 85% of cases being dealt with in under 12 months. It is very important for the integrity of the judicial system not only that we convict the guilty, but that we make sure that innocent people who are erroneously convicted have their sentences corrected.

Carolyn Harris: Increasingly we have seen individuals with a gambling addiction committing crime to fund their habit. These crimes inevitably end up being punished with custodial sentences, yet the gambling industry—which is often complicit, encourages these individuals to continue gambling and always profits from the situation—is not held accountable and escapes prosecution. Will the Lord Chancellor meet me and the officers of the gambling related harm all-party parliamentary group to discuss how we can rectify this outrageous and indefensible lack of accountability?

Robert Buckland: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her consistent and passionate campaigning on this important issue, which is an addiction for far too many people. As she knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will make a statement on gambling later, which I know she will broadly welcome. Of course, I will be happy to meet her and members of the APPG. Primarily, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport holds the brief on this issue, but no doubt there are wider criminal law ramifications on which I am happy to engage with her.

Gary Sambrook: Will the Secretary of State outline to the House what steps he has taken so far to ensure that the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements will be ready for the end of the transition period, so that it can effectively monitor the rights of European Union and European economic area citizens?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is right to raise an important issue that we undertook to get ready by the end of the year. I am confident that it will be ready by the end of the transition period to provide EU, EEA and European Free Trade Association citizens here in the UK with an additional layer of assurance that their rights will be safeguarded. We have had a dedicated project team in the Ministry working on that, and the IMA has taken up residence at headquarters in Swansea, my old stamping ground—with tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris).

Wendy Chamberlain: Over the last few weeks, there have been concerning reports that there were more cases of covid in prisons in October than in the previous seven months combined. In some prisons, that has led to restrictive regimes that have had a real impact on mental health. What conversations has the Lord Chancellor had with the Secretary of State for Health about when we should be vaccinating prisoners in order to protect prison staff and prevent hotspots from forming?

Robert Buckland: It is important to note that, as a result of increased diagnosis and testing, we have been able to establish with greater certainty the number of prisoners who are symptomatic or asymptomatic. We were not able to do that in the first wave, so the true numbers of covid sufferers were probably not clear to us; they are much clearer now. With regard to vaccination, it is important that we prioritise those who are the most vulnerable and at risk of death or serious illness. That is why, as with the rest of the population, we will be inoculating the older part of the population and those who are vulnerable. That will inevitably include staff, on whom I place a very high premium, and some prisoners. We will continue to work with Public Health England and Public Health Wales to ensure that we bear down on covid in our prisons.

Theresa Villiers: Some very impressive work is done by the charitable sector in supporting ex-offenders to deal with addiction problems. Will the Lord Chancellor ensure that his Department takes very seriously the importance of rehabilitation of offenders by enabling them to leave the substance abuse problems behind them, in the past?

Kit Malthouse: My right hon. Friend raises a critical issue for us in the prevention of crime, behind which so much substance abuse lies. While she is right that the charitable sector has a huge role to play, so do we. She will be pleased to know that earlier this week I had an interview with one of the first recipients of our alcohol sobriety bracelets, who has, for the first time in his memory, been alcohol-free for the last two months. He  said to me—it was very moving—that it had literally saved his life. As well as doing good to his society, we have done good for him.

Afzal Khan: The Government have made countless mistakes during the coronavirus crisis that could have been unlawful, including failing to provide health and care staff with adequate personal protective equipment, and sending hospital patients back to care homes without testing them. Will the Secretary of State confirm that any changes to judicial review will not affect cases related to Government failure over coronavirus?

Robert Buckland: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he perhaps misses the whole point of the judicial review—independent review—which is all about making sure that the current ambit of administrative law is in the right place, in the sense that we want to make sure that our judiciary are not brought in to a merit space or a political arena. As for individual cases, it is clearly stated in the terms of reference—and I will say it again—that the Government utterly support the right of citizens to challenge their actions or omissions by way of judicial review.

Selaine Saxby: A long-term view of victim funding will lead to better services and outcomes for victims of sexual assault, domestic abuse and serious violence. I therefore ask the Minister to provide an update of work within the Department to develop a long-term victims funding strategy to support those affected by crime in our communities.

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. When I was on the other side of the table as an eager recipient of Whitehall largesse, it long frustrated me that I had to spend six months spending the money and then six months planning to bid for the next round of money. She will know that in particular in this area, where we want to build resilience, out of the hidden harms summit earlier this year came a commitment to create a victims funding strategy, which is currently under way, but she will also know that we have awarded three-year funding through to 2022 via the rape support fund, to give sexual violence services greater stability in the future. I hope that will progress into all the areas that are concerned with this particular offence.

Matt Western: According to solicitors in Warwick and Leamington, the court system dealing with criminals is at breaking point. They see it as being completely chaotic. I appreciate that in the spending review the Government have announced additional money—£337 million—but the Law Society is calling for more. Will the Government actually accept what the Law Society is calling for and give additional funding to break the backlog?

Robert Buckland: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that both the Law Society and the Bar Council agree that this year’s settlement was encouraging. Of course, it is not the end of the story, and I have talked about us beginning to turn a corner. The good news in the magistrates courts is that receipts are now behind disposals, so we are dealing with the overall number of cases in the magistrates system. In the Crown court, we  continue to scale up the number of trials being heard. In fact, in the past week or so, I have been looking at figures of effective trials, crack trials and trials that have been dealt with by way of a guilty plea: the numbers are now in the high 300s. We need to get that up, and I am confident that we can do that in the new year to return us to the pre-covid levels, and then work even harder.

Tim Loughton: Earlier this year, another child was tragically stillborn after a failed forceps birth at an Essex hospital. There were calls for a coroner’s investigation until it was pointed out that coroners have no power. But of course they do under clause 4 of the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019, which was passed 19 months ago. When will those regulations be laid so that coroners have the power to investigate those tragic stillbirths?

Kit Malthouse: I am a great admirer of my hon. Friend and his persistent and effective campaigning on issues that are dear to him, but also to many people across the country. I understand his impatience on this issue and I know he has been given assurances previously in the House about it, but he will understand that the effect of the pandemic, which has ruined so much, has also delayed our consideration of the consultation on this matter. We will be publishing as soon as we possibly can, recognising the enormous impact that this has on particular families across the country.

Martyn Day: During the current negotiations, the EU has asked for a guarantee that the UK will not do away with domestic law giving effect to the European convention on human rights, but the UK has refused. Does that not tell us what the review of the Human Rights Act announced yesterday is really all about?

Robert Buckland: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is wholly misinformed. That certainly is not my understanding of the negotiations, and he will forgive me if I say I am a little closer to them than he is. The review that we announced yesterday was about looking at the mechanism 20 years on—nothing to do with undermining or changing fundamental human rights. We believe in them. It was British Conservatives who wrote the convention, and I will always stand for and uphold the importance of the European convention on human rights.

Marco Longhi: What steps are the Lord Chancellor and his team taking to address the widespread perception among my constituents that detention arrangements in prisons are not sufficiently robust to act as a deterrent?

Kit Malthouse: I understand that my hon. Friend is concerned about the perception of his constituents, but I hope he will explain to them that we have quite interesting and clever plans to deal with offenders, not only in prison but after prison. For example, from early next year, we will GPS tag every single burglar who leaves prison on licence so that we are able to locate them, particularly when a burglary takes place in their community, so that we can at least rule out those  prolific offenders in the future. There is lots that we can do in the criminal justice system that is much more smart than severe.

Liz Saville-Roberts: A third of prisoners transferring from HMP Altcourse to HMP Berwyn last month tested positive for covid. I understand that Berwyn has requested a stop to transfers. Will the Secretary of State agree to that request, considering the extreme concerns about community infection?

Robert Buckland: The hon. Lady knows that, since the beginning of this pandemic, we have taken unprecedented steps. All new arrivals in prison receptions are quarantined as part of our strategy of compartment- alisation. We are also now testing new arrivals at HMP Berwyn. That is an additional measure that allows us to identify positive cases early and put the right precautions around those individuals. It is with testing that we can improve the way in which we administer the prison system through this crisis.

Munira Wilson: Ministers will be aware that the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service was already experiencing a workload  crisis pre pandemic, which has only worsened through the lockdown. Although the Ministry of Justice has provided additional welcome short-term funding, do the Government have a longer-term strategy to ensure that CAFCASS can better retain staff and deliver a service that truly meets the needs of children and families?

Robert Buckland: The hon. Lady will be glad to know that an extra £3.4 million has been allocated to CAFCASS to help it through the crisis. Indeed, I take the point about long-term planning. In fact, we are looking wholesale at the way in which family cases are dealt with. The family harms report published this year was a no-holds barred analysis of what is wrong with the system, and both I and senior judiciary within the family division will do something about it.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Covid-19 Vaccine Roll-out

Jon Ashworth: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if he will make a statement on the covid-19 vaccine roll-out.

Matthew Hancock: At 6.31 this morning, 90 year-old Margaret Keenan from Enniskillen, who lives in Coventry, became the first person in the world to receive a clinically authorised vaccine for covid-19. This marks the start of the NHS’s Herculean task to deploy vaccine right across the UK, in line with its founding mission to support people according to clinical need, not ability to pay. This simple act of vaccination is a tribute to scientific endeavour, human ingenuity and the hard work of so many people. Today marks the start of the fight back against our common enemy, coronavirus.
While today is a day to celebrate, there is much work to be done. We must all play our part in suppressing the virus until the vaccine can make us safe and we can all play our part supporting the NHS to deliver the vaccine across the country. This is a task with huge logistical challenges, including the need to store the vaccine at ultra-low temperatures and the clinical need for each person to receive two doses 21 days apart. I know that the NHS will be equal to the task. I am sure we will do everything we can—everything that is humanly possible—to make sure that the NHS has whatever help it needs.
The first 800,000 doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine are already here in locations around the UK and the next consignment is scheduled to arrive next week. This week, we will vaccinate from hospitals across the UK. From next week, we will expand deployment to start vaccinations by GPs and we will vaccinate in care homes by Christmas. As more vaccines come on stream in the new year, we will open vaccination centres in larger venues, such as sports stadiums and conference halls.
People do not need to apply. The NHS will get in touch at the appropriate time and, when that time comes, we have one clear request: please step forward for your country.
I want to thank all those involved—the international team of scientists; the globally respected regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency; Public Health England; the vaccines taskforce; all the volunteers who took part in the trial; all those who have come forward for vaccination so far; and all those who will do so in future. Months of trials involving thousands of people have shown that this vaccine works and is safe. By coming forward, you are taking the best possible step to protect yourself and your loved ones, and to protect the NHS.
Help is on its way and the end is in sight—not just of this terrible pandemic but of the onerous restrictions that have made this year so hard for so many—but even while we can now see the route out, there is still a long march ahead. Let us not blow it now. There are worrying signs of the virus growing in some parts of the country, including parts of Essex, London and Kent. Over the coming weeks and months, we must all keep following the rules to keep people safe and make sure we can get through this safely together.

Jon Ashworth: The pictures today of 90-year-old Margaret Keenan receiving her vaccine, given by May Parsons, a nurse originally from the Philippines, is a wonderful moment bringing home to all of us that there is now light at the end of this very long tunnel. We are all beaming with pride for our NHS today. Let me put on record my thanks to all our NHS staff working so hard today, tomorrow and in the coming weeks months in administering these jabs. I again pay tribute to all our medical scientists, clinical researchers, regulators and trial participants who have made today happen. We should applaud them on our doorsteps.
I want to put a number of specific questions to the Secretary of State. May I ask him about those areas that do not yet have a designated hospital hub? My city, Leicester, has effectively never really left lockdown, impacting hugely on the wellbeing of our people and the economic prospects of our city. We are a diverse city with a high proportion of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, who we know are more at risk from the virus. My constituents, Leicester University and the Leicester leadership are all deeply disappointed not to see Leicester on the hospital hub list. I have been lobbying the NHS about this in the past 48 hours, and people in Leicester will get vaccinated, but can he say when areas like Leicester and other areas currently without a hospital hub will get one? When will local primary care network hubs be announced, and when will the mass vaccination centres’ locations be announced? Can he assure us that all vaccination centres and communications will be accessible for those with disabilities and that staff will be appropriately trained?
On care homes, I am grateful for the update the Secretary of State gave us when he mentioned Christmas. Does he anticipate that all care homes will have access to the vaccine by Christmas?
Of course we have to vaccinate NHS staff—that is really important. Can he confirm that that includes student nurses, medical students, physiotherapy students and so on? What plans are in place to ensure that harder to reach groups—such as the homeless, for example—have access to the vaccine?
The Secretary of State has presumably seen the reports today in the Health Service Journal that £567 million of requested funding for covid projects was turned down. Can he guarantee that the NHS will get all the resources it requests to ensure the smooth and rapid roll-out of the vaccine?
The Secretary of State indicated in the newspapers at the weekend that the tiers could be loosened by March if uptake is successful. In the same way that we receive daily published figures on case numbers and tests processed, could we receive daily updates on vaccination doses administered, and could it be by priority cohort?
Finally, what are the plans to tackle anti-vax harm online? I have literally just been sent a WhatsApp video claiming that this is all a global plot to change our DNA. We know that harmful content circulates on Facebook and other platforms. This is garbage: how can we deal with it?
This is indeed a momentous day, and we can all look forward to a much better 2021.

Matthew Hancock: That is right—we can all look forward to a much brighter 2021. We must stick with it for now, but we can see the way through this.
The hon. Gentleman asked several very reasonable questions. We start today vaccinating in 70 locations across the UK, and we will expand these locations over the coming days. Today we will set out the next tranche of hospital hubs, including Leicester, and vaccinations in Leicester will start in the coming days.
On access to the vaccine, of course we need to make sure that it is available to all, and that includes all with disabilities and all our most vulnerable people, like those who are sleeping rough. This will be best accomplished when we get the primary care community vaccination model rolled out, which will be in the coming weeks. We need to make sure that how we get the vaccine physically out into the primary care networks can be assured as safe, because obviously that is one step more difficult than vaccinating from a hospital, hence we have started in hospitals and then we will get out into primary care and community delivery, and then into the vaccination centres after the new year.
The hon. Gentleman asked about NHS students. The definition of NHS and social care staff set out by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is those who are patient-facing, for obvious reasons. We will set out more details in due course.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the publication of data on the number of vaccines that have been administered, and according to which priority groups. We will set out those details when the vaccinations have taken place, so that people can see how the programme has been assessed. Overall, may I join him in saying how wonderful it was to see the pictures on the TV this morning—emotional for many of us—and that I am delighted that we have been able to make this progress?

Jeremy Hunt: Like many, I would like to congratulate our scientists; I would like to congratulate the Health and Social Care Secretary himself, the vaccines taskforce and NHS frontline staff, all of whom have made this extraordinary day for our country possible. It is very, very cold outside, and the question on many people’s minds is: are they now able to book a summer holiday? What is my right hon. Friend’s answer to that question, and is there anywhere in particular that he would recommend if the answer  is yes?

Matthew Hancock: It makes me very proud that we have managed to start this vaccination programme sooner than many people anticipated. People told me that it was not going to be possible and that it was all very difficult. It has been difficult, but we have got there, and we did so because of international science, working with German scientists and American pharmaceutical companies, and people right around the world working on this project. I have high confidence that the summer of 2021 will be a bright one, without the sorts of restrictions that made the summer of 2020 more restricted. I have booked my holiday—I am going to Cornwall.

Martyn Day: The commencement of a safe and effective vaccination programme is extremely welcome, but recent studies have shown that as little as 54% of the UK population are certain to have the vaccination. There is a clear need to counter misinformation, whether online scare stories or jingoistic nonsense, so what extra steps will the Minister  take to ensure public trust in the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness and to encourage take-up? What assurance can he give that there will be fairness in access to the vaccine until it is widely available, and when does he think it will be available to anyone who wants it? During that period, will the UK Government commit to a similar strategy to that of the Scottish Government of pursuing the eventual elimination of the virus?  With a vaccine now available, that is more possible than ever before.

Matthew Hancock: It is only with a vaccine that we can finally defeat this virus and get life back to normal. This UK project has made huge strides forward, and I am very, very grateful to NHS Scotland for the work that it is doing right now in making sure that the vaccine can reach people across Scotland, as the NHS is doing in Wales, Northern Ireland and England. It is a big team effort, and it is because the UK vaccines taskforce was the first out of the blocks on buying the vaccine, along with the smart approach taken by the MHRA, that we have been able to get to this point before any other country.
The hon. Gentleman asked about fairness in access. Absolutely—fairness is critical, hence we will follow the clinical advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation on priority, again, right across the UK. Finally, I agree strongly with him—the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) also raised this, and I did not respond to it, so I shall now—that countering disinformation is incredibly important. That is best done with positive information and explaining objectively why and how the vaccine is safe. Something that we can all do in the House is talk positively about the benefits of the vaccine for keeping people safe and keeping their community safe. I pay tribute to all those who have been willing to come forward and talk in public, and I thank those who have already had the vaccine—since 6.30 this morning—and have been willing to tell their story publicly to help others have the confidence to do the right thing. Finally, surveys of the UK population show that we have one of the highest acceptances of taking the vaccine in the world. The numbers who are enthusiastic about it are rising at the moment, and we need to keep that going.

Holly Mumby-Croft: I echo the Secretary of State’s thanks to the MHRA for its tremendous work in ensuring that this vaccine is safe. I look forward to having my jab as soon as it is my turn, and I will encourage everybody I love to do the same. Earlier this week, we learned that Scunthorpe General Hospital was not among the first group of vaccination hubs. Can my right hon. Friend provide further clarity on how those hubs are allocated, and can he reassure me and my constituents in Scunthorpe, who are currently in tier 3, that we will receive the vaccine in the very  near future?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, absolutely. We have started at  70 hospitals across the UK. Those are the ones that are best able to deal with the difficult logistics of a vaccine that has to be stored at minus 70° C. I understand the desire for every hospital to get on that list, and we will publish a further list later today. My local hospital, the West Suffolk, is also not yet administering vaccines. The other critical part of this is the primary care networks—the  community roll-out—which will get us to many, many more sites where people are able to access the vaccine, so that in Scunthorpe and across the whole of the UK, everybody is able to access this vaccine as fairly and safely as possible.

Nick Smith: It is brilliant that the vaccine programme is beginning, but unfortunately, there are real question marks over who is benefiting from some of the covid-19 contracts. How will the Secretary of State ensure that cronyism and profiteering do not become features of this stage of the covid-19 response?

Matthew Hancock: Thankfully, as the National Audit Office set out, they have not been a feature of any of the response to coronavirus, so that is good.

Damian Green: Those on the frontline normally face bullets, so my right hon. Friend and his entire team deserve the bouquets that they are receiving today. I am delighted that the William Harvey Hospital in Ashford is already dispensing the vaccine. Does he agree that one of the groups in greatest need who deserve it first are residents of care homes, who have faced such a miserable 2020?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I do, and I hope that we can get the vaccine out to residents of care homes as soon as is feasibly possible. They are in the top priority group clinically, and it is simply a question of how quickly we can operationalise getting the vaccine out to care homes. I hope that that can start before Christmas. I pay tribute to everybody working at the William Harvey Hospital in Ashford this morning, administering vaccines already and helping to protect the lives of my right hon. Friend’s constituents.

Munira Wilson: May I start by saying what a joyful moment it was this morning to see those first vaccinations and thank everybody who has been involved in making this happen? I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s optimism about our summer holidays next year. However, I gently point out that we have seen setbacks from some of the manufacturers in terms of when the doses of vaccine will be delivered. With both Pfizer and AstraZeneca, it will apparently be 3 million doses arriving by the end of the year, rather than the 30 million that were originally forecast. Does he still think it is feasible that the most vulnerable will be vaccinated by the spring, and how many of those of us who are healthy under-50-year-olds might be vaccinated by the school summer holidays?

Matthew Hancock: I understand why the hon. Lady and many others want to know what the speed of the roll-out will be. Because we are reliant on the manufacturing process, which is itself a difficult challenge, we cannot put figures on when the roll-out will be. We hope that we will be able to lift the measures by the spring, and we hope that we will all have a much more normal summer next year, but I do not want to put too much more detail on it than that, and I cannot put more in terms of the numbers, because there are so many contingencies. What we can be sure of, and what we can work and plan for, is the NHS being able to deliver the roll-out at the speed at which the manufacturers can manufacture.

Joy Morrissey: May I thank my right hon. Friend for all he has done in his fight against the coronavirus, and may I thank the Department for this roll-out of the vaccine? It is actually a monumental step in our fight against the coronavirus—just in time for Christmas. It is the Christmas present we all wanted. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that, because the UK was one of the first countries to secure the vaccine, we should be able to move more quickly out of local restrictions in the new year, as the vaccine is rolled out?

Matthew Hancock: Well, I very much hope so, but there is some time between now and then, so we have got to temper our joy and enthusiasm at today’s announcement with the need to keep on keeping each other safe between now and then. Let us not blow it, since we can see that the answer is on the horizon.
I reiterate the point that my hon. Friend made about the team in the Department, because my civil servants and special advisers have been amazing during this year. They have worked so hard—seven days a week, often 18 hours a day—and they deserve enormous praise, because this is a team effort and nobody can do this sort of thing on their own.

Jim Shannon: First, could I say what a positive news story it was this morning when Margaret Keegan got her jab, followed by a fellow called William Shakespeare, which I thought was quite interesting? I thank the Secretary of State and all those who have made this happen, because it is really good news. Will the Secretary of State outline whether he has liaised with the Treasury to secure the funding needed to roll out this vaccine in the devolved nations, bearing in mind that we are behind on our flu vaccine roll-out and both cannot be carried out at the same time? Further, what discussions have taken place with the Secretary of State for Defence to provide trained military assistance in the devolved regions to make it happen?

Matthew Hancock: This year, I have sometimes turned for inspiration to the bard:
“If you prick us, do we not bleed?”
So it was a delight and a coincidence to find that Mr William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon, a constituent of the vaccine roll-out Minister, the  Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi)—by coincidence; Members should not get any ideas—was called forward to be the second person to be vaccinated by the NHS. It is absolutely terrific to see that people right across this United Kingdom are being vaccinated right now according to need, and I hope it can bring us all together.

Kieran Mullan: Can I start by joining my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the scientists, clinicians, trial volunteers and many others who have made it all possible? They have given us the light at the end of the tunnel. We have to remember that there were no guarantees that we would get any vaccine; to have at least one is fantastic. I am glad to see a number of sites in the north-west have been allocated for the roll-out, but my constituents will probably be asking for and expecting somewhere closer to home—for example, at Leighton Hospital near Crewe and Nantwich. What are the plans for expanding the sites available for vaccination?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, we will keep expanding the sites available. Of course, I understand why people want their local hospital to be dispensing the jab. Alongside hospitals and those vaccination centres, we will make sure that we have sites in the community, and we will get them going just as soon as it is safely possible.

Rupa Huq: This brilliant news, on which I also congratulate everyone, contrasts with the rather alarming revelations last night that we may be veering towards a no-deal Brexit. If that does occur, could the Secretary of State guarantee that there will be no disruption to the supply chains for all these different vaccines—AstraZeneca, Moderna, Pfizer—and will he also rectify the rather Ealing-shaped hole in hospital provision in north-west London? We have 360,000 people, and we were No. 1 in London for cases recently, so that does need fixing.

Matthew Hancock: There is very significant provision for vaccination in London. I will take up the specific point about Ealing, but London, thankfully, is a very well connected and interconnected city. To assure the hon. Member on the point about logistical disruption, we have five contingency plans in total to ensure that we can continue with the vaccination supply no matter the differing types of disruption.

Mary Robinson: I am delighted that Stepping Hill Hospital in my constituency will be part of this historic day as the coronavirus vaccine programme begins. Along with rapid testing, tracking and isolating, we aim to bring our covid rates down further, prior to the tier review next week. In welcoming this fantastic news, does my right hon. Friend agree that we must not lose sight of the importance of “Hands, face, space” as a key way to keep us virus-free while the vaccine is rolled out to the rest of the population?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, my hon. Friend is completely right. We must all keep doing the basics—“Hands, face and space”, respecting the rules, and living carefully with personal responsibility, so as to minimise the chance of passing on the disease asymptomatically. We must keep doing that even while we have this great news of the vaccine which, as many have put it, is the light at the end of the tunnel.

Barbara Keeley: This is a momentous day, and I look forward to receiving my vaccine when it is my turn. I thank those who are being vaccinated, those who took part in the trials, and all those who worked to make this happen. I understand that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has set a priority list for vaccines based on clinical vulnerability, but that has made people who were on the frontline of the crisis, including unpaid family carers, feel as if they are being ignored. Our immediate priority during this phase of vaccinations has to be reducing deaths, but once the most vulnerable have been vaccinated, will the Secretary of State say whether unpaid carers will become a priority for vaccination?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Lady and I agree that clinical need must be the priority, and once we have reached all those with a significant clinical need, as set out by the JCVI, we will set the next stage of priorities in due course.

Imran Ahmad Khan: I, too, commend the titanic effort of all those involved in the creation, manufacturing and distribution of the covid-19 vaccine. As more and more of us are vaccinated against covid-19, will my right hon. Friend outline what plans there are to ease the most draconian measures across the tier system, so that people and businesses can sensibly return to normal?

Matthew Hancock: While the vaccine rolls out, the best way to get any area down through the tiers is to continue to follow the restrictions that are, unfortunately, still absolutely necessary to keep people safe. Having said that, because we have a vaccine, the faster we can roll it out, the sooner we can get to the point where we get rid of the system altogether.

Peter Grant: If I had not been on the call list for this urgent question, I would have been joining friends and colleagues of Leslie, to pay our final respects to a warm-hearted man who sadly lost his life to the virus. Thinking of his family, and what happened to him, brings home to all of us how urgent it is to get a vaccination programme up to speed as quickly as possible. That can happen only if a significant proportion of the population accept the vaccine. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) has highlighted the dangers if too many people are taken in by the scare stories circulating on social media, and people can also be put off if they see politicians responding with too much bombast or jingoism to the start of the vaccination programme. May I commend the Secretary of State sincerely for the measured tone that he has adopted today? Will he encourage his ministerial colleagues to be similarly measured in any future pronouncements that they make about this important day in the battle against covid?

Matthew Hancock: All of us in Government feel encouraged by today’s progress, but we are also determined and resolute to get through this in the safest way possible, and out into the brighter seas beyond, when we can get rid of the restrictions altogether. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about how important it is that we all keep that resolve, not least because of the example that he set out, and I send my commiserations and those of the Government to his constituent. Many of us have suffered loss during this pandemic, and we want it to be over as soon as we can. We must keep going until it is safe to do so.

David Johnston: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and the many people who got us to the heart-warming images that we saw this morning? A lot of the highest priority groups in my constituency live in more remote villages rather than in towns, and there are issues from transport connections to a fear of going out. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that those factors that affect more remote locations are being included in the planning for the roll-out?

Matthew Hancock: One hundred per cent. That is a very important point, and it is important right across the country, especially, if I may say so, in Scotland and Wales. We have the primary care network community roll-out, which aims to get the vaccine out into the community as close to where people live as possible.

Bill Esterson: The start of vaccinations is excellent news, and it is excellent news for my constituents that Aintree Hospital is one of the first in the country for the roll-out. The Health Secretary rightly said, “Let’s not blow it.” We still need to fix the gaps in contact tracing and in financial support for those who need to self-isolate. Only 11% of people are being contacted, according to the figures that I am getting, and we still need to learn from contact tracing in east Asia. Will he put resources into local public health teams, which are much better placed to fill those gaps, so that contact tracing plays its part while we wait for the roll-out of the vaccine across the country?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Gentleman is right in principle that contact tracing and the testing roll-out are still critical while the vaccine roll-out happens. I am glad to say that his reports of only 11% being contacted are not right; the figure is much higher than that. I am also really pleased that in the Liverpool city region, which includes his Sefton constituency, we are now rolling out community testing much more widely, with the support of local teams. I hope that he will help us all in putting a shoulder to the wheel in that effort.

Tom Hunt: I do not actually think it has happened by accident that we are the first country in the world to have approved this vaccine. We saw very emotive images today, and I make no apology for being proud of that. This is a proud day to be British. I would like to thank the NHS and all our wonderful scientists for being part of that, and the regulatory authority.
I was glad last year to hear—last year? A couple of days ago. [Laughter.] I was glad to hear that East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust is going to be one of the first to get the vaccine. Unfortunately, Ipswich currently does not have the facilities to store it. I am obviously keen for my vulnerable constituents to get access to that vaccine ASAP, so I just want to know what the plans are in the very short term, before any community roll-out, to make sure that Ipswich constituents can get access in Colchester, and for storage facilities in Ipswich Hospital to make sure that we can move forward.

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend’s constituents will be able to access the vaccine in Colchester from now, and some will be being called forward. Like many others, he rightly asks for the vaccination roll-out to reach Ipswich itself, and it will reach Ipswich itself just as soon as we can get that sorted. I have a lot of sympathy with what he said about two days feeling like a year!

Meg Hillier: It is a great day for medicine, science and the population, but in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), the Secretary of State was somewhat dismissive of an important National Audit Office report that raised serious concerns about the letting of contracts in Government—contracts being published late; missing paperwork; the establishment of a high-priority lane, with one in 10 of those applying via that route awarded contracts; and an overall lack of transparency. As the NAO says, the lack of documentation of key decisions, including
“why particular suppliers were chosen”,
is important. It is taxpayers’ money that is being spent. In relation to the vaccine roll-out, are private companies  involved, and will the Secretary of State commit to being open and transparent and publishing the contracts and all the paperwork that goes with them?

Matthew Hancock: Of course I will defend to the end the work that we did to get the PPE roll-out to which the hon. Lady refers. Of course we had priority contracts, because we wanted, when somebody had a good lead, to be able to see if we could make an arrangement as fast as possible, but that was all done through the proper processes, as the NAO report sets out. She asks—I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady, but really—whether private companies will be involved in the vaccine roll-out. Try Pfizer or BioNTech, the people who came up with and are manufacturing this vaccine. Without them, we would not have a vaccine at all, and a bit of a thank you would do well from the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

Mark Harper: I join the Secretary of State in thanking the NHS staff in my Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust who are in the first 50 hospitals to be rolling out the vaccine. That is very welcome, including to my constituents. Given that he was right to be a little cautious about the speed at which we will be able to get this vaccine rolled out, it seems to me not right that we should keep every single restriction in place until we have rolled out the vaccine to the entire population. The onus still remains on the Government to justify every restriction and the balance between the benefits of reducing covid, the economic impact and the non-covid health harm. May I ask the Government to set out that detail before the House is asked to take another decision on these restrictions in January?

Matthew Hancock: The House might be relieved to know that my right hon. Friend and I agree with each other on the need to ensure that, as the vaccine is rolled out to vulnerable groups, we monitor the impact of the vaccine on reducing cases, reducing hospitalisations and reducing the number of people who sadly die from this disease, and take that basis for the judgment of how soon we can lift the restrictions. He and I want to lift the restrictions as soon as is safely possible, and the question of the judgment on how safely is one that we will have to monitor and debate in this House over the coming weeks and months.

Alistair Carmichael: When we speak about vulnerable groups, will the Secretary of State assure me that we will not forget those who are homeless? We know that people who are homeless, especially those who are sleeping rough, suffer many disadvantages and barriers to accessing healthcare at the best of times, quite apart from any pre-existing mental or physical health conditions that they have. What steps is his Department taking to ensure that we reach all vulnerable people, whether they are homeless or not?

Matthew Hancock: That is an incredibly important consideration, both on the grounds of social justice and because all of us can pass on the disease to others, so it is right, fair and practical that we must ensure that everybody has access to the vaccine. The community roll-out will be the primary means by which we can reach some of the most vulnerable, including the homeless, whom the right hon. Gentleman mentions. That will be an important consideration in the roll-out.

Peter Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend outline how his Department is working with local authorities, such as Darlington Borough Council, which is keen to move out of tier 3, to inform our constituents about how, when and where they can access the vaccine?

Matthew Hancock: I am delighted that the James Cook University Hospital in Teesside is one of the first and is vaccinating today. There is a lot of work to be done to make sure that we roll out the vaccine across Teesside, but in the meantime I pay tribute to everybody in the Tees Valley, including in Darlington, who has followed the rules. The numbers are coming down quite sharply, but we have to keep at it, because until this vaccine is rolled out to protect the most vulnerable, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) put it—until that day—we have to make sure that we keep the virus suppressed until the vaccine can make us safe.

Mike Amesbury: Today is a great day for Britain and the world, and I thank all those involved on a global level to ensure that we have light at the end of the tunnel, and hope and optimism. People in Cheshire West and Chester and Halton who have loved ones in care homes are desperate to visit them. When can those who are resident, the carers and the family members expect to get the vaccine?

Matthew Hancock: I understand how important this is. The roll-out of testing to allow for visiting by Christmas is under way. In terms of the vaccine, care workers, because they can travel, are already—today—being vaccinated, and I hope that we can start the roll-out of vaccines to those who live in care homes, where the vaccine needs to be taken to them, before Christmas.

Nigel Mills: I welcome the fact that hospitals in Derbyshire are in the first wave of the vaccine roll-out as well. Will my right hon. Friend assure those who are living at and not able to leave home that the roll-out plan will include home visits for those who really need them?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. That is the hardest part of the vaccine roll-out to deliver by its nature, because of the minus 70°C requirements of the vaccine, but it is absolutely a part of the plan.

Kate Osborne: We already know that poorer areas have fewer GPs, so it is crucial that they receive extra resources to ensure that they are not left behind in the roll-out of the vaccine, on which I congratulate everyone involved. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the vaccine will be fairly distributed across the UK and that working-class communities such as mine in the north-east will not be put at the back of the queue again, as they have been so many other times during this pandemic?

Matthew Hancock: I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that the fundamental principle of the roll-out is that it must be done according to clinical need and fairly right across every part of the UK, and that is what we are delivering to.

Jason McCartney: Having been under a variety of restrictions since August, and being now in tier 3, my Colne Valley constituents are incredibly welcoming of the roll-out of the vaccine. We are looking forward to reopening hospitality businesses and starting to get back to normal in the new year. The chief medical officer for Leeds Teaching Hospitals has confirmed that his team are ready for the roll-out of the vaccine across West Yorkshire as soon as it arrives, so can the Secretary of State please confirm that this week we will start to see the roll-out of the vaccine across West Yorkshire?

Matthew Hancock: Today we are seeing the very start of that roll-out, and I absolutely hope that that will expand across West Yorkshire over this week.

David Linden: I, too, pay tribute to everybody in the NHS who will be administering the vaccine. One of the concerns I had at the beginning of lockdown was that many of my asylum-seeking constituents who have no recourse to public funds were very much left behind in the original lockdown. What work will the Government and the Red Cross in the United Kingdom be doing to liaise with the Home Office to ensure that no one is left behind? After all, covid does not adhere to people’s nationality.

Matthew Hancock: We have a programme under way to ensure that those without an NHS number can get vaccinated; the NHS number is the basis of the calling system to invite people to be vaccinated, but of course not everybody has an NHS number, and we must ensure that those without one get called forward too.

Simon Clarke: I pay tribute to everyone involved in administering the vaccine from The James Cook University Hospital in Middlesbrough today. Looking ahead to the next stage of the roll-out, I have been contacted by a GP surgery in Berwick Hills in my constituency that is concerned about the resource implications of delivering the vaccine, since it is severely under strength and serves one of the most deprived communities in England. Will my right hon. Friend agree to look at their case and discuss what extra support might be made available to surgeries that find themselves in that position?

Matthew Hancock: The way we have organised the primary care roll-out is through networks of GP practices—primary care networks, as they are called—so that if one GP practice is under particular pressure, for instance because it may be carrying vacancies, the effort can be put together over a wider network of GP practices. The funding support for GPs to deliver this vaccine, as with the flu vaccine, is negotiated and agreed with the British Medical Association and is part of the operational roll-out of the vaccine in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere across the country.

Naseem Shah: First, may I add my thanks to everybody who has put in the effort to ensure that we get the vaccine? That is lovely news, but unfortunately once again this Government are failing to plan. My clinical commissioning group was given 24 hours to get together the GP practices to roll out the vaccines, and the criterion was 1,500 over-80s. The fact that places such as Bradford West and inner cities have nine years’  less life expectancy and 16 years’ more ill-health means that the three centres that have been set up are in affluent areas. Not a single one is in inner-city Bradford, yet the Government’s own review accepts that covid disproportionately affects black and minority ethnic communities. When will the Government stop discriminating against those who live in inner-city areas, and prioritise them because of their health risks?

Matthew Hancock: The roll-out of the vaccine is being managed by the NHS, and it is entirely unfair of the hon. Lady to describe the NHS in that way.

Simon Fell: It was a delight to turn on the radio this morning and hear some good news for once, but my right hon. Friend is right to describe the roll-out of this vaccine as a Herculean task. In the light of that, what measures is he putting in place to accelerate the development of capacity to make more vaccine, and also covid therapeutic antibodies?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, today has been a celebration of progress we have been able to make, but there is a huge amount more to do, not just in the roll-out but in making sure we have the future vaccines that may be necessary, and the capacity in this country to manufacture and deliver the next generation of vaccine technologies. The advance in vaccine technology over the past 11 months globally has been extraordinary and it is critical that we in the UK have that future capability. That is something the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), the Minister with responsibility for vaccine roll-out, is concentrating on very clearly.

Kevin Brennan: Thank goodness for science, thank goodness for international co-operation and thank goodness for our NHS. As a Member of Parliament representing the capital city of Wales, obviously I am very interested in how the different parts of the United Kingdom are going to get the vaccine. Can the Secretary of State tell us a bit more about the work his Department is doing with the devolved Administrations to make sure the vaccine is distributed quickly and fairly to all four nations of our UK?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, this is a UK project that is being done through the NHS in the four nations. The Welsh Government are playing their part. I spoke to Vaughan Gething, my Welsh opposite number, last night to ensure the roll-out was co-ordinated and the final details put in place. There are seven hospitals in Wales that are injecting the vaccine today. I want to thank everybody across Wales for their forbearance. This has been a tough time in Wales. There are still sacrifices to be made while we keep the virus under control until the vaccine can get rolled out through enough of the vulnerable population and we can return life more to normal.

Suzanne Webb: With the vaccine now being rolled out, I was thrilled to see this historic moment—in the world, no less—being administered in the west midlands. I urge my constituents of Stourbridge, when the call to arms comes, to please do take up the vaccine. This question has been asked already, but I do not think there is any harm in my right hon. Friend  reiterating his answer. Does he agree with me that we must keep adhering to social distancing, and face, space and hands, and that never more so than now is that a moral imperative, so we can all get back together sooner as a non-socially distanced community, with covid-19 confined to a memory only?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, my hon. Friend puts it very well for the people of Stourbridge and right across the west midlands. We must keep our resolve and stick to the rules. She is right that we have a call to arms, in more sense than one, because we are injecting hope into the arms of people from today. If people are asked to come forward by the NHS then, like her, I urge them to do so.

Emma Lewell-Buck: The Secretary of State will not be surprised, bearing in mind his track record in rolling out testing and tracing, that the hope offered today comes with some serious concerns about the delivery and administration of the vaccine. He has said repeatedly this morning that there are five contingency plans for delivery in the event of failed Brexit talks. What are they?

Matthew Hancock: As I said, we have those five contingency plans. The hon. Lady will understand that ensuring we have high security around those plans is also very important. I want to put on the record my thanks to the people of the north-east, who have done so well over the past few weeks in bringing the number of cases under control, in part thanks to the huge injection of testing we have been able to put in because we have built up testing capacity. I look forward to the day, Mr Speaker, when she and I can work together in the public interest, as we do everything we can to keep people in the north-east safe.

Lindsay Hoyle: Do you know, I don’t think you’re going to get an answer.

Elliot Colburn: May I join in paying tribute to the NHS, the scientists and indeed my right hon. Friend for today’s amazing news? Carshalton and Wallington residents were touched to hear the words of George Dyer this morning, who, in next door Croydon University Hospital, was the first Londoner to be vaccinated. He said that he was looking forward to going to the shops at Christmas and seeing his family once again. Can my right hon. Friend tell me a bit more about how the vaccine roll-out will roll over into next door Carshalton and Wallington, so that people can share in George’s joy?

Matthew Hancock: Some of the stories we have heard this morning have been really heart-warming, of people being able to have the confidence to do the things that in normal life we take for granted. I heard the story that my hon. Friend refers to and it was truly charming. I look forward to seeing the roll-out in Carshalton and Wallington, and then I look forward to building a new hospital in Sutton for his constituents.

Rachael Maskell: Huge demands are being placed on our NHS staff and they are being asked to step up yet again today, so we thank them for all their efforts. Let me ask about one thing the Secretary of State could help with: instead of every vaccine being individually prescribed, he could issue a patient group directive. Is that in his plan? Will he be doing it?

Matthew Hancock: We are working on doing that as soon as it can safely be achieved.

Stephen Crabb: I join colleagues in thanking the Secretary of State and his team for their incredible hard work, which has brought us to this place. Today is indeed a really good, positive day for the whole United Kingdom. Although the past nine months of pandemic may at times have shone a spotlight on some of the division and tension inherent in our system of devolved government, does he agree that what today fundamentally demonstrates is that when we work together—when we collaborate as a strong family of nations—what we can achieve as a United Kingdom is truly remarkable?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I could not put it better than my right hon. Friend, who speaks with such power on this subject. I truly believe that it is only because we, as a United Kingdom, went in so early to be buying and developing these vaccines, using all the strength of our United Kingdom, that we have been able to get to this point before any other country in the world.

Ben Lake: Like many others, I welcome today’s developments and agree with the Secretary of State that we can look forward to the new year, when, we hope, further vaccines will come online. He will be aware that there has been some discussion of the relative effectiveness of different vaccines, so will that influence the Government’s distribution strategy in any way? Specifically, will certain vaccines be prioritised for certain groups?

Matthew Hancock: The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, should it be approved, does have easier logistical and distributional qualities—it does not have to be stored at minus 70°—so that helps. Of course, the JCVI will consider the clinical properties of any vaccine that comes forward when deciding who it can be distributed to, so that is taken into account. Finally, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that this has been an international as well as a UK success. I had a text exchange with my German opposite number this morning to thank, through him, the German scientists who have done so much to make this possible.

Daniel Poulter: I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a practising NHS psychiatrist who has been working on the frontline throughout this pandemic. The Secretary of State will be aware that mental health patients are often an afterthought of policymakers, although I am sure that is not the case for him, and that many of them have multiple medical comorbidities, which make them more vulnerable to covid-19. Will he reassure me that patients in mental health services, particularly in-patients, and NHS staff who work in in-patient mental health services will be prioritised for this vaccine and will not be an afterthought?

Matthew Hancock: Absolutely. NHS staff are in the second priority cohort set out by the JCVI, and that includes all patient-facing staff in the NHS and social care. Patients who are clinically vulnerable to covid absolutely have their rightful place in the prioritisation, according to clinical need.

Tonia Antoniazzi: The roll-out of the covid-19 vaccine today is welcome news, especially for the exciting sporting calendar for 2021, with events such as the Olympics and Paralympics in Japan, the Euros, the Lions tour to South Africa and the women’s rugby world cup in New Zealand, which I must not forget. Concerns have been raised with me about whether sporting competitions will be subject to compulsory vaccination, so what assessment has the Secretary of State made of that—not only for elite sport, but for all competitive sport in 2021?

Matthew Hancock: We have not made such an assessment; we are still in the early days.

Steve Brine: I think I have sat through every single urgent question and statement that the Secretary of State has done, but the fact that it says “Covid-19 Vaccine Roll-out” on the annunciator screen is still hard to believe. The Secretary of State said earlier that we had got there because of international science. We will deliver global health security only through an international effort—put another way, no one is safe until everyone is safe—so I wonder whether he can update us on how we will work with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance to help the poorest countries in the world, and of course, those nearest to us who are not the poorest countries, but with which we have a lot of inbound and outbound travel? How can we get them on the same page as us quickly?

Matthew Hancock: The UK has put more money into the international search for a vaccine, and the distribution of a vaccine to the countries that otherwise would not be able to afford it, than any other state of any size, and we should be very proud of that. The way that we have managed the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is to ensure that it is available on a not-for-profit basis, essentially, worldwide. We have taken this approach because, to put it exactly as my hon. Friend did, nobody is safe until everybody is safe. This is a global pandemic and we need to address it globally. That is the only fundamental way to solve this for the long term. In the short term, what we all need to do is keep following the rules.

Mary Foy: The vaccine is indeed welcome news, but until it is fully rolled out, the north-east will continue to be harmed by the lack of economic support that accompanies tier 3 restrictions. The Health Secretary stated that the restrictions were based on
“cases among the over-60s; the rate at which cases are rising or falling; the positivity rate; and the pressures on the local NHS.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 1000.]
Can he therefore tell me precisely what level these figures will have to be at for the north-east to be moved into tier 2?

Matthew Hancock: We consider all those figures, and because we consider them alongside special factors such as whether there is an outbreak, we do not put a specific figure on that, as the hon. Lady well knows. But what we have done is put in more economic support than almost any other country in the world, as the International Monetary Fund has recognised. We have tried as best we possibly can to support people through what has been an incredibly difficult year. We have not been able to save every job, but with the economic measures of  support for business and the furlough scheme in place, we have put in very significant support. But the best support that people in the north-east, and elsewhere in the country, can have until this vaccine is rolled out is to continue to follow the restrictions that are necessary and then, if they get the call from the NHS, take that vaccine.

Bob Stewart: A charming lady of 92 has contacted me. She lives on her own, and she cannot get out of the house. I have assured her that the Secretary of State for Health will make especial efforts to ensure that she is looked after and gets her vaccination as soon as possible. Is that correct?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, if she can travel. When the NHS calls, my advice to my hon. Friend’s constituent is to get that card with that invitation and to phone up my hon. Friend, and he will give her a lift.

Holly Lynch: This is incredibly welcome news today. Looking ahead to Christmas, I have been approached by a number of emergency service workers in the NHS, policing and other sectors who will miss out on the opportunity to see loved ones because of the window for household mixing—they will still be working on the frontline in the fight against the coronavirus crisis during that period. I appreciate that this is a difficult one to crack, but has the Secretary of State given any consideration to flexibility to ensure that those who really deserve a Christmas with their loved ones can still get it?

Matthew Hancock: I have a huge amount of sympathy with what the hon. Lady says, and we have looked into this. We are not proposing to extend the Christmas bubbles, but we hope that NHS trusts and employers across the NHS can look compassionately at exactly this situation for all those brilliant colleagues who are working so hard and have had such a tough year.

William Wragg: I always enjoy my exchanges with my right hon. Friend, and this time I mean that when I say it, because this is incredibly welcome news, particularly given Stepping Hill Hospital’s role in the administration of the vaccine. I will certainly encourage all my constituents, when they receive the invitation, to have the vaccine, take it and dispel some of the more eccentric views that are circulating on the internet. Can my right hon. Friend tell me specifically when those with particular vulnerabilities, such as cancer patients, can expect the call for vaccination?

Matthew Hancock: The plan is, according to clinical priority, to vaccinate those in care homes and their carers; NHS and social care staff, and the over-80s; then the over-75s; and then, at that point, we will turn to ensuring that all those who are on the clinically extremely vulnerable list get vaccinated along with the over-70-year-olds. That is the assessment of the JCVI, which looked into the relative risk that people face and found that age is the No. 1 risk factor.

Charlotte Nichols: I am sure the Secretary of State was far from the only one to be emotional today watching the first vaccinations taking place. This is truly a proud day for our country. Although  it is right that NHS and social care staff will be among the first to receive the vaccine, what consideration has the Department of Health given to prioritising access for other groups of key workers, including school support staff and workers in transport and essential retail, not only in recognition of the enormous sacrifices that they have made for our nation during the pandemic, but to minimise disruption as we return to normality?

Matthew Hancock: We looked at that very closely, as did the JCVI, and because of the risk of dying of covid, it is absolutely right that age takes priority. The prioritisation of health and social care staff is also high because they look after those who are most at risk of dying. Once we are through those clinical priorities, then of course, we will be looking to prioritise other workers, including those the hon. Lady mentions.

Neil Hudson: I congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend, his Department, the NHS, the scientists, the clinicians and everyone involved in the development and roll-out of this covid vaccine technology. Will he provide assurance that logistics are in place to ensure that those in remote rural areas, such as those in Cumbria, will be able to access the vaccination programme without any delay, given that they are some distance from major hospitals?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, my hon. Friend rightly raises an important point. Vaccination is happening in Cumbria today, which I am really pleased about. Cumbria is, of course, one of the most rural parts of the UK, so when we get to the primary care and the community roll-out, we will make sure that we can get the delivery as close to communities as possible. That is much harder with the Pfizer vaccine because of the minus 70° requirements. The AstraZeneca vaccine is much easier from that point of view, but of course, we do not have that clinically signed off yet.

Kerry McCarthy: This morning, at Southmead hospital, 98-year-old Jack Vokes became the first person in Bristol to be vaccinated, which is obviously great news, and I join my colleagues in congratulating NHS staff on all their work at this time. May I press the Secretary of State on the point about transport workers, particularly taxi drivers, who we know are vulnerable not just because of their contact with the public, but because they are overwhelmingly drawn from the black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, which puts them more at risk? Under the headings of prioritising occupations and minimising the inequalities in the second tranche, are they likely to be considered for vaccination early?

Matthew Hancock: We absolutely will consider that factor when we come to the groups after the clinical prioritised groups. I join the hon. Lady in thanking Jack and all those who have put themselves forward today to be vaccinated, including sometimes in the public eye, as part of this programme to help build confidence in vaccination overall and, of course, to help protect themselves and their loved ones.

Stephen Metcalfe: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his whole team on their Herculean effort to get us to the  point where, today, Basildon University Hospital has started delivering the vaccine. Now, as we scale up the roll-out programme, will he join me in reassuring people that, despite the speed of development, not a single stage was missed and that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has done its usual due diligence in approving this vaccine?

Matthew Hancock: That is right. The MHRA has gone through the same safety processes as normal, but it has done them in parallel at the same time, rather than in a series, one after another. It is that sort of smart and thoughtful approach, alongside the work of the Vaccine Taskforce in buying the vaccine in the first place, that has allowed us to get to this point of having confidence in the safety and efficacy of this vaccine before anybody else in the world. Everybody in Basildon who gets the call can have confidence that they should come forward, get the jab, protect themselves, protect those around them and, therefore, help us all get through this terrible thing.

Christine Jardine: I echo the sentiment that it is such a pleasure to be able to stand here today and talk about covid-19 with a smile on our faces, and to look forward to 2021 after such a horrific year. That is particularly true for people who are vulnerable and have been shielding, and they will now need reassurance that the vaccine will get to them. Does the Secretary of State agree that, as we go into next year, we should take with us and bear in mind the fact that we have done this across the UK, as a United Kingdom?

Matthew Hancock: There is more in common than divides us, and we are stronger as a country when we all work together; those two things I have long believed. I have always thought that a vaccine would come through. Lots of people told me that it was not certain and that it could not happen, but I have always driven it forward for the whole UK, because it is the clear route out.

Damian Collins: It is obviously excellent news that the vaccine has been rolled out today. I was delighted to see that my constituent, Kenneth Lamb from New Romney, was the first patient to receive the vaccine at the William Harvey Hospital in Ashford. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is really important that people take the vaccine when they are offered it, and that we do all we can to combat harmful disinformation about it? The next time that he speaks to Mark Zuckerberg, will he remind him that we expect his companies to act against harmful anti-vaccine disinformation?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, yes and yes.

Nadhim Zahawi: Thrice yes.

Matthew Hancock: Thrice yes, indeed; I thank my hon. Friend, who is Stratford’s representative in this place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) is right about disinformation. I have been doing a lot of work with Nick Clegg, who is Mark Zuckerberg’s representative on earth. Facebook and Instagram have taken significant strides forward in terms of removing anti-vax content, and I am very grateful to them for the work that they have done. I have no doubt that there is more work that we can all do together, but they have played their part.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Gambling and Lotteries

Lindsay Hoyle: Before I call the Minister to make a statement, I am tempted to say that it is pleasing that he has found time in his busy schedule of media appointments to update the House. It really is for the benefit of the Minister himself, as well as Members, for the House to be informed first of policy changes. I hope that he and those within the Department who feel that this House should not hear it first will bear that in mind in the future. I have the greatest respect for the Minister, and I am sure he would agree that this is not the way that we want it to happen.

Nigel Huddleston: Mr Speaker, I hope you will accept my apologies for any offence caused by some of the information already being out there. I can assure you that the full details and the call for evidence document are only just now being released and made available on the gov.uk website, precisely to coincide with this statement, but I understand and accept what you said.
The Gambling Act has been the basis of virtually all gambling regulation in the UK since 2005, but a huge amount has changed since then. The internet and the prevalence of smartphones have transformed the way we work, play, shop and gamble. We can now gamble anywhere at any time. It is time to take stock of the significant changes of the last 15 years and to pull our legal and regulatory framework into the digital age, so today, we are launching the first part of our comprehensive review of the Gambling Act. It will be a wide-ranging and evidence-led look at the industry, and it will consider the many issues that have been raised by parliamentarians and many other stakeholders. We want to listen, gather the evidence and think deeply about what we need for the next decade and beyond.
Nearly half the adult population gambles each month and, for the majority of people, gambling is a fun and carefree leisure activity. It is also a sector that supports 100,000 jobs and pays nearly £3 billion a year in taxes. However, we know that, in some cases, gambling can cause significant damage to people’s lives, including mental health problems, relationship breakdown, debt and, in extreme cases, suicide. We must ensure that our regulatory and legislative framework delivers on a core aim of the 2005 Act: the protection of children and vulnerable people in a fair, open and crime-free gambling economy.
This review will seek to strike a careful balance between giving individuals the freedom to choose how they spend their own money, while protecting vulnerable people and their families from gambling-related harm. We will look at whether we should introduce new protections on online products and consumer accounts, including stake and prize limits, and how we can ensure that children and young people are protected. We will also consider gambling advertising, including sports sponsorship, while taking into account the extremely difficult financial situation that many sports organisations and broadcasters find themselves in as a result of covid. We will look at redress arrangements for consumers where, for example, an operator has failed to step in to help a problem gambler. We will consider barriers to effective research  on the causes and impact of problem gambling, and we will consider whether the Gambling Commission is keeping pace with the licensed sector and can effectively deal with unlicensed operators. We will also ensure that we have a fair playing field for online and offline gambling.
Many of those areas were highlighted in a thought-provoking report by the House of Lords Select Committee. That report and others have helped to inform our thinking and our desire to ensure that the review is wide in scope, and we are publishing our response to the Lords report alongside the review. I also know that Members across the House have seen evidence from their constituents about the harm that gambling can do to individuals and their families. We want to hear from the people whose lives have been affected by gambling, as well as from academics and the gambling industry, so that we have the evidence to deliver real and lasting change. We are therefore starting the review with a call for evidence, which will run for 16 weeks and is now available on the gov.uk website.
While this review is an opportunity to consider changes for the future, we are also taking action now to protect people from gambling harm. The Gambling Commission will continue to build on recent progress to strengthen protections as the industry regulator. Our ban on gambling with credit cards came into force in April, and new tighter rules on VIP schemes were implemented at the end of October. Further work is also in progress on the design of online slot games, as well as on how operators identify and intervene to protect customers who may be at risk, including through affordability checks. We have also just closed a call for evidence on loot boxes, and the Department of Health and Social Care will keep working to improve and expand treatment for problem gambling.
A key priority is ensuring that we have the right protections for children and young people and, again, that cannot wait. To that end, we are also today publishing a response to the consultation on the minimum age to play national lottery games. Since its launch in 1994, the national lottery has been a tremendous success, raising more than £42 billion for good causes. Since 1994, its games portfolio has evolved significantly, while consumers have shifted towards online play and instant win games such as scratchcards. While evidence shows that most 16 and 17-year-olds do not experience gambling-related harm from playing the national lottery, some recent studies point to a possible correlation between national lottery play at 16 and 17 and problem gambling in later life. Moreover, few other countries allow 16 and 17-year-olds to purchase their national lottery products.
Protecting young people from the risk of gambling-related harm is of paramount importance. We have therefore decided to increase the minimum age of the sale of all national lottery games to the age of 18. We are keen to make this change at pace while being acutely aware of the need to give retailers and the operator time to ensure a smooth transition. The legislative change will therefore come into force in October 2021, but we have asked that, where it can be done sooner, it is—for example, online. So under current plans, national lottery sales to 16 and 17-year-olds will stop online in April 2021.
The review we are starting today will be an opportunity to look at the wider rules on children and gambling, and to make sure they are suitably protected across all forms of gambling. I know many colleagues will welcome the launch of this review today and will be pleased to  see us living up to our commitments in the 2019 manifesto. We intend to be broad, thorough and evidence led, so that we can ensure our gambling laws are fit for purpose in the 2020s and beyond. I commend this statement to the House.

Alison McGovern: I thank the Minister for early sight of his statement. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the main measures that the Government have announced today, and I certainly welcome the beginning of this process of review and reform. Many Members across the House and in the other place have worked very hard indeed to get us to this place. I will not mention individuals specifically, not least because I am sure they will speak for themselves shortly, but we owe them a debt for bringing this issue to the fore. I thank all of them, because when people work across the House and across party political barriers in pursuit of the public interest, it is Parliament at its best.
This is only the beginning of the process to get the reforms that we need on gambling, so it is disappointing that the Government have taken more than a year to launch this review, during which time we know there are still people who may be suffering. Gambling addiction is highly serious, and we know that we have not got the right support in place. So the delay has a cost, which is why we need to move forward together and swiftly now. What we need is fit-for-purpose regulation which can keep up with the changing nature of gambling online, both on the smartphones that we all carry and in the environment around us all the time. We believe that the law in this area should be approached from a public health perspective to protect the vulnerable and particularly children and young people—I think the Minister would accept that—but to allow others who choose to do so to gamble safely. The Minister mentioned that UK gambling legislation is some 15 years old and it is hard to quantify the technological change that we have all experienced during that time. If somebody had told me in 2005 precisely what the phone in my pocket would have the capacity to do by this point, even I would have been shocked. We need to bring the legislation up to date. There is not a moment to lose.
Millions of people enjoy gambling in a safe way, but, as I have said, given the speed of change, vulnerable people should be protected. Age verification must be taken seriously.
The pace of technological change has wider ramifications. Apps, games and online advertising within apps have shown the dangers when we are not able to future-proof legislation. Will the Minister confirm that the review will address not just problems that we know of now, but that we will use the opportunity to try to anticipate future changes? That will not always be possible, but we should at least attempt to do so.
In the review, we would like the Government to adopt the following approach, particularly in considering the legislation that we need. We know from the pandemic that public health must come first, and that is my first question to the Minister. Will he confirm that we will be taking a public health approach in the review?
Secondly, of course people are free to choose what they wish to do in a free country, but will the Minister confirm that the Government take their responsibility  to protect people from harm seriously and that the review will attempt to quantify that harm so that we can target the right measures effectively to reduce it over time?
Thirdly, the legislation must be evidence-based. I do not think anyone in this House is any longer a sceptic of experts, but just to make sure, could the Minister confirm that public health experts will be able to contribute fully and transparently, so that people will be able to understand the evidence that the Government rest on?
Fourthly, all towns across the country should be able to enjoy the benefit of having a sports club at the heart of their community. Many rugby league clubs, football clubs and other sports have long-standing relationships with gambling companies. Will the Minister take those relationships into consideration? We are expecting another review—a fan-led review of football—and I do not think it makes a lot of sense to commence the gambling review without that football review alongside it. Where the issues interconnect, we can handle them both together. Will the Minister bring forward the fan-led review of football to start without further delay?
Finally, on consumer protection, companies operating for financial gain should not be able to exploit anybody, particularly the young and vulnerable, so will he make sure that consumers have better rights in this area? Will people have access to their own data—I am thinking of where people are targeted online with adverts and so on? Will the review also look at the unlicensed operators, who are one of the most worrying aspects in this area?
We welcome the review. We want to see it happen in a way that is collaborative across both sides of the House and among all stakeholders in the country, because that is the best way to make sure that it is a success. Many people in this country enjoy gambling. Everybody has the right to spend their own money enjoying themselves. However, where a harm is clear, the Government have a duty and responsibility to tackle it.

Nigel Huddleston: I thank the hon. Lady for the tone of her response and for welcoming the review. She is absolutely right that the measures in the review and the scope of the review have been supported by hon. Members on both sides of this Chamber and many individuals have campaigned on these issues for a long period of time.
On timing, it is important to recognise that we do not wait for the periodic reviews. We are not waiting for necessary future legislation. We have acted and will continue to act as and when necessary. Just this year, for example, we banned the use of gambling with credit cards. We have made further restrictions on VIP schemes. There is the mandatory participation in GamStop, for example, and the announcement today about the changes with national lottery is testament to the fact that the Government are willing and able to take action. There was also action just last year on fixed-odds betting terminals.
In terms of future-proofing, no Government can guarantee to future proof, but certainly the intent is for the scope to be broad and wide, recognising, for example, changes in technology and what that could mean for using information intelligently to identify potential problem gamblers, as well as looking at the scope of the Gambling Commission itself.
In terms of evidence, we are looking for evidence from all sources, including all those that the hon. Lady suggested—from health and from academics. We welcome the participation of anybody willing and able to participate in this review with evidence.
The hon. Lady made an important point on sport. As sports Minister—we both cover sport—I know the challenges that the sporting sector faces, so we need to make sure that any changes are proportionate. Indeed, as she knows, we intend formally to kick off the football governance review as soon as possible. Informally, it has already begun. Other areas such as redress and the black market will absolutely form part of the review.

Julian Knight: No longer is gambling a case of just nipping down the bookies. We now live in a world dominated online with sophisticated algorithms and increasing artificial intelligence. Will the Minister assure the House and me that the review will place at its centre the oversight of algorithms in push marketing and fairness in bet exchanges, and that that will dovetail with robust age verification on social media platforms? In addition, when will we see the legislation to curb the menace of loot boxes? As a side point, on the banning of national lottery sales online, why do we have to wait until April next year? Surely, that is something that could be actioned relatively quickly.

Nigel Huddleston: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for, as always, valuable comments. On using technology intelligently, I absolutely agree with him—it is vital that we do so to identify problem gambling and issues of affordability, and that that forms part of the future-proofing of the sector.
The loot-box issue is being addressed. We have issued a call for evidence, which concluded on 22 November, and we will introduce recommendations shortly. On the lottery changes, as I say, we have had conversations with key stakeholders. We want to move as soon as possible. The target date of 1 October is the latest date for changes. We want to bring the online changes forward as soon as possible, but there are notifications, technology changes and logistical considerations, as well as training considerations. It is not the kind of thing that can occur overnight, but we have had productive conversations with the operators to make sure that we can implement the measures as soon as possible.

Ronnie Cowan: I thank the Minister for prior sight of the statement. I welcome the overall messages in it, as they touch on many of the issues that have blighted the industry and caused great harm to many people for far too long. There is a great deal to discuss, and I shall keep a beady eye on the process and progress of the review.
In the time allotted to me, may I thank the Minister for making it clear that the evidence-led inquiry will include those who have been harmed and the families of those who have lost someone to suicide as a result of gambling addiction? Lived experience is crucial to inform the review. However, I am concerned that the Minister has caveated his concerns about advertising with the financial difficulties faced by sports organisations and broadcasters. The reduction of harm must be front and  centre in the review, and must not be undermined by the eye-watering financial demands of premier-league football teams.
On the national lottery, there is no excuse for delaying the enforcement of the increased age limitation offline for 10 months. May I ask that the timescale is revisited or at least justified? I did not read anything in the statement about the voluntary levy. We need a statutory levy that funds research, education and support. That money should be paid to the UK and devolved Parliaments before being channelled to the appropriate service providers. Research into gambling harm must not be funded by voluntary contributions from the industry that causes the harm.
Finally, many people, including members of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling-related harm, will scrutinise the outcome of the review. May I offer a friendly warning to the Minister? We will not be fobbed off with a partial review, and we will not accept second-best.

Nigel Huddleston: I can confirm that the experience of those with lived experience will form part of the review. In fact, the Secretary of State and I have met many victims and their families, and we will continue to do so. On sport, if there is evidence of harm from sponsorship and advertising, we will act. On the other considerations that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I can assure him that if people have evidence, for example, that a levy is an alternative model, we would welcome those submissions in the review. I welcome the scrutiny that he and others will give to the review as it progresses.

Iain Duncan Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, which marks the beginning of a real sea change in our attitude towards the gambling abuses that have taken place. On that point, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), whose chairing of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm has been phenomenal, and to the vice chair, the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan). We have worked very hard together to try to drive this moment. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we want all the evidence we have taken over the last couple of years to be part of the inquiry. I would also like the all-party parliamentary group to appear in front of it.
May I press my hon. Friend on one particular point? He knows about the abuse of VIP schemes and about the behaviour of the gambling companies, which have been appalling in the way they have used people. Is it not now time, instead of looking only at the powers of the Gambling Commission, to get rid of the Gambling Commission altogether and institute a body as powerful as, say, Ofcom or all the other bodies that monitor and regulate these industries? Now is the time to make bold moves, to make sure we get proper control and that the abuses and the addiction end.

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my right hon. Friend for all his work in this important area, and the people he mentioned who have also campaigned for such a long time. We know that there have been problems with VIP schemes. We have acted on them already, but that does not mean that further action is not necessary. I am confident that the evidence-led review may reveal further options and avenues. I welcome his input into all areas  under consideration. As I said, the Gambling Commission’s scope and resources are part of that review. I welcome his further comments.

Carolyn Harris: The architects of the Gambling Act 2005 could never have anticipated that by 2020 technology would allow phones, tablets and computers to become 24/7 limitless gambling hubs. For far too many, this has led to devastation, demoralisation and, at worst, death. Can the Government assure the House that the voices of bereaved families, those with lived experience, campaign groups and colleagues and friends from right across the House will be given the same consideration when feeding into this review as the well-resourced, confrontational and relentless gambling lobby, whose sole motivation is profit, not people?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank the hon. Lady for her ongoing campaign in this important area. We have had many conversations on this, and I know her passion for change. I can confirm that those with lived experience and the families of those impacted will absolutely play a key role in the review. We welcome their evidence. As has already been suggested, some evidence has been brought forward in various other reviews and reports that we have seen in the House, and we welcome re-submissions of some of that data. The role of those people is vital. We all know, through experiences and interactions with our constituents, how devastating problem gambling can be. I think the whole House recognises the need for further action.

Richard Holden: I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friends from the all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm. I also thank the Minister for his statement. I know that he has done a lot of work in this area. It is good to hear that the review will be broad and wide. However, can he clarify that, when he mentioned parity between high street and online, he is not saying that high-street casino gambling will be the same as online casinos? Quite frankly, there should be one place where the highest-stakes gambling can take place, and that is not in people’s homes and bedrooms.
I also urge my hon. Friend to reflect on the Public Accounts Committee’s report around an ombudsman service. Some points that we raised were recommendations from the Public Accounts Committee, particularly around redress for people who have suffered real harm, and are really worth noting. I hope he will take note of those considerations.

Nigel Huddleston: As I said, the role and scope of the Gambling Commission and other areas will be under consideration. The point about the land-based system versus the online world is that, as many have mentioned, the world has changed considerably, and we want to ensure that there is an even playing field in gambling. We need to make sure that all forms of gambling are as safe as they possibly can be. The goal of this review is to tackle harms as much as possible, but also to make sure that the legitimate gambling industry is on a safe footing for a sustainable future.

Andrew Gwynne: I welcome the statement, but the Minister will understand that the online harms Bill, when we get it, will have a crucial role to play in this area. Big tech firms are allowing unregulated  black market gambling companies to promote on their websites, and they are advertising to the under-18s. What does he think about that, and what is he going to do about it?

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Gentleman raises legitimate concerns about the black market—the unlicensed industry, which does exist. This will form part of the review. Part of it will include the scope, responsibilities, powers and resources of the Gambling Commission and regulatory bodies to deal with the black market. It is a very important issue.

Craig Whittaker: As with all Government reviews, sectors and people fear that Government do not take into account their concerns and often adopt a “do to” rather than a “do with” attitude. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with sporting bodies, particularly in horse-racing and football, on the financial implications that the review could have for their members?

Nigel Huddleston: We have had very few discussions so far about the specifics of this review because we are only announcing its scope and the call for evidence today. We certainly intend to have conversations about the possible impact of some of the potential options on the sports sector. I encourage all stakeholders, including all sports bodies, to contribute to the review in the call for evidence that we are announcing. We will be happy to have further discussions about this with my hon. Friend and others.

Gerald Jones: I welcome this review, and there is clearly a need for robust action. The Minister will be aware that there have been claims from the online gambling industry that regulation should be moderated or it risks driving gamblers to the black market. Does the Minister agree with the Gambling Commission that there is absolutely no evidence for this? Does he also agree that if we want to prevent the growth of the black market, regulation to prevent harm is the solution, not the cause?

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Gentleman expresses some legitimate concerns. One of the great problems, of course, is that, by definition, it is almost impossible to assess the size, scope and scale of the black market, but where evidence does exist we will welcome it as part of this review. We do recognise the problem, and that is why we explicitly include the unlicensed market—the black market—in the review. We need more work and more information, and we need to decide what action needs to be taken to tackle it. It is a very serious issue.

Aaron Bell: I welcome this review and the opportunity it presents to update our regulations in the gambling and gaming sector. I know from my time in the industry that some firms have gone above and beyond in developing tools to help to prevent and identify problem gambling. I hope that this review will be an opportunity to formalise and spread best practice. As the Minister said, over 100,000 people are employed in the sector, including nearly 4,000 in north Staffordshire, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent at my former employer, Bet365. Can my hon. Friend assure me, and them, that the review will look to strike a balance, acknowledging the enjoyment that  millions of people from gambling in a responsible manner and how important it is that people are not driven to unlicensed operators where they would have neither basic consumer protection nor the regulatory supervision that we all want to see?

Nigel Huddleston: My hon. Friend is right to point out the dangers of the unlicensed market and to point out that gambling is a legitimate business in the UK, paying £3 billion in taxes and employing about 100,000 people. However, the industry itself acknowledges that harms can happen. It has played, and I expect it to continue to play, an important role in identifying harms and what we can do to minimise them. Its voice will be heard in this review, but we all have a shared goal of making sure that we do everything we can to minimise gambling harms.

David Linden: I understand that today there is perhaps a focus on some of the online gambling, but can I ask the Minister not to forget those communities, such as in Glasgow East, where digital exclusion is still a massive issue? In that vein, when are we going to confront the fact that many of these working-class communities where lottery ticket sales are higher do not actually see a lot of the funding follow through? In my experience, it tends to go to more middle class areas with professional fundraisers.

Nigel Huddleston: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Again, the review is very broad in scope for exactly this purpose. Comments, information, data and evidence can be brought in to raise all these issues, and they will be looked at carefully.

Laurence Robertson: I welcome this review and also the Minister’s determination that it should be evidence-based, consistent and balanced, but can I join my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) in reminding him of the enormous contribution that betting companies make to horse-racing? It is to the tune of about £350 million a year, which is a very large amount to that sport, even in ordinary times. At the moment, like other sports, it is going through very difficult times, and without that contribution horse-racing would not survive.

Nigel Huddleston: Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Horse-racing is of course a vital industry in the UK. I can confirm that the levy on horse-racing is not actually due for review till 2021; it is not explicitly part of this review. However, on the role that gambling has and the link with sport, we recognise that there are some challenges, but also many upsides, and we will consider those as part of this review.

Stephanie Peacock: Following my question in April, I welcome today’s news that the Government will extend the ban on under-18s gambling to the national lottery, but the Minister will be aware that the recent online ban on gambling with a credit card does not apply to the lottery. If a betting shop in Barnsley rightly does not accept gambling on a credit card, then why should it be allowed on the national lottery?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank the hon. Lady. I am well aware of her campaigning on this issue over a long period of time, and I thank her for that input. There is a difference between lottery-based games and other forms of gambling. There is evidence to suggest, for example, that the gambling harm is lower in the lottery than in other forms of gambling, and therefore there is a difference between the types. As I say, however, this move is an important one today, and I appreciate that she welcomes it.

Andrew Bridgen: Given that the recent Public Accounts Committee report on gambling regulation declared that the Gambling Commission
“do not know what impact they are having on problem gambling, or what measures would demonstrate whether regulation is working”,
will the Minister use the opportunity of the review to assess whether the Gambling Commission itself is fit for purpose, or needs to be replaced by a new body to provide the real leadership needed on the issue of gambling regulation?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I am aware of the comments made in the Public Accounts Committee report. I appreciate the work that it and, indeed, many others have done in providing input on this issue for a long period. As I have said, I do not wish to pre-empt any of the conclusions of the review. This is a call for evidence at this stage, and therefore recommendations and suggestions for future regulation will be welcome.

Chris Elmore: The Minister will be aware of some the work I do on social media, and I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on social media. One of the key areas where we are seeing huge increases in people taking up and partaking of gambling is through influencers. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) asked a question about the online harms Bill, so I would like to understand from the Minister what work he is doing now on tackling influencers who are able to target particularly children and young people and try to encourage them to gamble. That really does need to be addressed long before this review is concluded.

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are considering action on the broader issue of online harms and the role that social media companies play in that. That work will be undertaken alongside this review, as well, and we will certainly work together. I will work with colleagues in the rest of the Department to make sure that we are very much aligned.

Scott Benton: Some 200,000 customers used an unlicensed gambling operator last year, resulting in an estimated £1.4 billion in turnover. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with online platforms to tackle this black market in gambling?

Nigel Huddleston: Like several other Members, my hon. Friend raises the important issue of the black market. As I have said, that will be considered as part of the review. We welcome evidence and suggestions from all stakeholders, in helping to scope not only the size and scale of the black market, but what further actions could be taken to tackle it.

Liz Twist: We know that too many people have a problematic relationship with gambling, which has a really bad effect on their wellbeing and mental health, even leading to suicidal thoughts and feelings. I welcome the recognition of that in the Minister’s statement. How will the review consider that issue in the next period?

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Lady will be aware that we work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care, which is working on clinics particularly relating to the treatment of gambling. Three are already up and running, and we have an ambition to open far more. The industry is contributing towards the financial costs of some of this treatment, as well as to research and education overall; we have a commitment over the next four years of £100 million. Of course, this review will be an opportunity to assess whether that model is appropriate or whether other alternatives should perhaps be considered.

Scott Mann: It is estimated that 37 million people in the UK enjoy playing video games on a daily basis—this includes random content through loot boxes, which they use to enjoy their gameplay. Done right, free-to-play games with additional purchase elements can be a good model. So does the Minister agree with the Gambling Commission that where in-game items obtained via loot boxes are confined to those games and cannot be cashed out, they fall outside the Gambling Act 2005?

Nigel Huddleston: My hon. Friend makes the important point that, without wishing to be pedantic, there is often a debate about whether loot boxes and games of chance, or those where there is not a financial benefit at the end, are actually “gambling” or “gambling-like behaviours”. However we wish to define them, we are taking action. That is why it was important that we had the call for evidence on loot boxes, which was completed recently, and further action will be taken, on recommendations, by the Government.

Peter Grant: Every year, the gambling industry spends £1.5 billion on advertising to encourage us all to gamble more, which is 25 times more than we spend giving help to people with a problem with their gambling and 80 times more than it is required to give to the Gambling Commission, which is supposed to regulate it. The commission will never be able to regulate the industry properly when it relies for its funding on these tiny scraps that fall from the industry’s table. Will the Minister therefore agree to look seriously at having the Gambling Commission adequately and directly funded from the public purse, so that it is independent and, more importantly, can be seen to be independent of the industry it is attempting to regulate?

Nigel Huddleston: The Gambling Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority both currently have a role in reviewing advertising relating to gambling, and they have significant powers. However, many legitimate concerns have been raised on this issue, so both the advertising and the scope and resources of the Gambling Commission will be part of this review.

Damian Collins: I am pleased to hear the Minister say that loot boxes fall within his remit of work at the moment, because they encourage people to spend more on in-game purchases than they otherwise would do if this were turned into a game of chance where there were no published odds. Will he also say something about social media targeted advertising by gambling companies? I am aware that social media companies are allowing online betting companies to target known problem gamblers with incentives to bet, which is completely unethical. It should be outside the rules and it should be part of the review.

Nigel Huddleston: My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about this area as well, and I thank him for his comments. Let me be clear: the call for evidence relating to loot boxes is separate from this review; it is a separate activity being undertaken by the Department. I should also be clear that any advertising that is deliberately targeting children or vulnerable groups should not be happening, and therefore it is a major concern. The questions raised in this review and the call for evidence seek to ask how effective the current rules are, and those will be major considerations as part of the call for evidence.

Christine Jardine: Liberal Democrats welcome this review very much, as issues such as online gambling have needed to be addressed for some time. Given the impact of gambling and the damage it causes, and given that the work that needs to be done to rectify it stretches across a number of Departments, what consultations has the Minister had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Department of Health and Social Care and other Ministries about the review?

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Lady will not be surprised to learn that DCMS constantly engages with the Treasury on a range of issues, and certainly the Department for Health and Social Care has a very strong interest. The Health Secretary—a former DCMS Secretary of State—is very knowledgeable about the gambling sector and the harms, and we are working closely on treatment. The Department of Health and Social Care is looking to expand the number of treatment centres, and we will continue that dialogue and work across the Departments.

Felicity Buchan: I have several leading casinos in my constituency, and they have worked hard to deal with problem gambling. Does my hon. Friend agree that casinos are important for our international tourist economy?

Nigel Huddleston: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Casinos form an important part of the attractions. They are why many people come into the country, and they are important for in-bound tourism. I understand exactly what she is saying. Casinos play an important part, and the whole point of the review is to ensure a legitimate gambling industry that is on a sound footing for future growth. I look forward to working with the casino sector to ensure that that happens.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his statement about the review of the gambling industry, and I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for her leadership on  the all-party group. Time is of the essence, so will the Minister assure the House that reform will happen quickly? Will reform happen outside the formal review, for example on loot boxes and the video games that others have referred to? Could such reforms be implemented with a faster time frame?

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Northern Ireland regulation on gambling is separate from that of Great Britain. He raises an important point, and we will work with the devolved Administrations. Loot boxes fall under a separate review. The call for evidence has just ended, and we wish to consider the feedback from that as soon as possible. The other aspects that he raised will form part of that review. We completely understand the need for action, and as I said in my statement, we have taken action where necessary, with legislative and non-legislative measures from loot boxes to changing the rules on credit card use, as well as today’s announcement on the national lottery. We are willing and able to move quickly.

Jacob Young: I fully welcome this review, which will surely protect my constituents in Redcar and Cleveland from gambling harm in the long term. However, the Minister will know—we have had a number of conversations about this—about the issues regarding the horse-race betting levy, and the urgent need for reform to support racecourses such as the one in Redcar. Will he update the House on any steps he has taken to fix that situation, so that Redcar can keep on racing?

Nigel Huddleston: I know what a horse-racing fan my hon. Friend is, and we have had many conversations about that issue. The horserace betting levy is not part of this review, but we are having ongoing conversations with the horse-racing industry. I look forward to further conversations with my hon. Friend.

Alex Davies-Jones: I broadly welcome today’s announcement, but given this Government’s unforgivable delay to the online harms Bill, many questions are left unanswered. It is vital that young people are protected in their online space, so what considerations have the Government made to include age verification requirements for gambling providers as part of the online harms agenda? When will the Bill finally be brought to Parliament?

Nigel Huddleston: The issues of age verification, product, and the way such things are marketed will be part of this review, and they are also ongoing considerations of the Gambling Commission. This will be a 16-week review. We recognise that in these challenging times of covid, responders may need a little more time to respond to the call for evidence, and therefore the review is slightly longer than normal. We will then produce a White Paper with Government recommendations. As I said, the review is deliberately broad, and the issues raised by the hon. Lady will be part of it.

James Sunderland: I am clear that online harms are increasing risks to our children, and I note that families have spent much of the past nine months in lockdown. As a parent, I am worried by addiction to  games such as Fortnite, when our children could be outside playing. Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department will consider an outright ban on gambling incentives such as loot boxes, as well as better educating parents, carers and teachers about the dangers of online gaming?

Nigel Huddleston: The issues around loot boxes that my hon. Friend articulates are legitimate; hence the call for evidence on loot boxes. That call for evidence ended on 22 November. The Government are currently considering the evidence that has been brought forward, and we will respond in due course. My hon. Friend raises legitimate concerns that have been raised by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and many others over many years.

Alex Norris: The bookies form a key part of our high streets and provide a supervised environment for responsible gambling. In contrast, the online gambling space is like the wild west. We have heard so much about black market operators that have caused extraordinary levels of harm, so it is right the Government are looking at this issue. However, that will only be effective alongside good online harms legislation, which we have been promised for three years now. When will we see it?

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the online harms legislation was a commitment. It is absolutely a commitment. I know that it gets support on both sides of the Chamber, and we will be hearing more in due course.

Greg Smith: I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s statement as a vital step in bringing up to date the provisions of the Gambling Act 2005, but may I ask him for some reassurance about how any test of balance will be weighted so that prevention of harm can rightly take centre stage, while we ensure at the same time that the millions of people who gamble responsibly are not in some way stigmatised, and, as others have said, that activities are not driven underground?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out the absolute necessity in this review for a balanced, evidence-led approach. I assure him that we will strike the right balance between giving individuals the freedom to choose how they spend their own money, and protecting vulnerable people and their families from gambling-related harm. It is a balancing act, and we take that responsibility very seriously.

Owen Thompson: Last year, the vice president of EA described loot boxes as “ethical”, “fun” and akin to buying “Kinder eggs”. However, research has linked some loot boxes with problem gambling in older adolescents, so we clearly need to take action. I hear what the Minister is saying about the call for evidence just finishing and that that is part of a separate review, but how will that review feed into this wider review of the Gambling Act overall?

Nigel Huddleston: Yes, I can confirm that the call for evidence has concluded, and we will be responding to that soon. Legal definitions were one of the reasons that it was a separate review from the one on gambling, but that should aid the process, rather than hinder it.

Mark Fletcher: I warmly welcome this review and today’s announcement. As the Minister has said, the way that people gamble in 2020 is completely different from how the majority of gambling took place when the Gambling Act was passed in 2005. Does the Minister agree that, in line with these changes, the Government should be considering boosting the powers and resources of the Gambling Commission to ensure that it can keep pace with the licence sector and tackle the black market?

Nigel Huddleston: Indeed; the scope, roles, responsibilities and resources of the Gambling Commission will form part of the review. It is right that we consider the structure of governance and regulation for the industry, and any recommendations and suggestions that my hon. Friend has would be welcome as part of the call for evidence.

Margaret Ferrier: I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the review. However, it is believed that, in the UK alone, members of the armed forces are eight times more likely to develop gambling addictions, especially if they have experienced past traumatic events. Given this distressing statistic, will the Minister confirm whether he has had any discussions with Defence Ministers about measures to prevent the spread of problem gambling among our armed forces personnel?

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Lady is right to point out that certain demographics and roles are more susceptible to problem gambling than others. I have not had specific conversations with the Ministry of Defence yet, but we would welcome input on this issue as part of the evidence process. She raises the important point that different segments of the population are impacted and targeted differently, and the scope of this review includes looking at targeting and the prevalence of gambling among different demographics.

Paul Bristow: I fully appreciate that the focus of this review will be on the technological advances in recent years, but I still have major concerns about the number of gaming centres and venues for gambling in Peterborough, particularly in the Millfield area of my city, and the subsequent risk of gambling-related harm to some of the most vulnerable local people. I welcome this review, but will my hon. Friend consider giving local councils such as Peterborough City Council further powers to close problem high street gambling venues and restrict the number of venues in any one particular area?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. There are already regulations and rules if there are problems, and social and behavioural challenges, in terms of the powers that local government has. He raises important points, though; as I said, in terms of responsible gambling across the board, we intend to ensure that this review is evidence-led and looks at a whole variety of issues, including the ones he raises.

Toby Perkins: I very much welcome this review. As the statement has exposed, a huge breadth of issues need to be considered. Will the Minister say something about the extent to which the  amount of gambling that now takes place online creates opportunities to gain much better information about who is gambling and for ensuring that issues that are raised by the review are targeted at those who are problem gamblers? Will he ensure that that information is more widely available?

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. Just last year, for the first time, gross gambling yield was greater online than offline, so we have now reached that cusp where more gambling in the UK is online. We should therefore be able to use technology, and emerging technology, in a far more sophisticated way, as he suggests, to make sure that we identify problem gambling and potential problem gambling. I would expect information on that to be part of this review.

Clive Efford: In my experience, in the past the gambling industry has been able to exert a great deal of influence over the Minister’s Department. I welcome his commitment to an evidence-based review, but if the review is to be effective, it will need access to data from the industry and to up-to-date research. Will he commit to ensuring that this wealthy industry pays for fully independent research to be carried out, which we are all going to need if we are going to carry out this review effectively?

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the historically poor level of information, data and research in this sector. It is improving, and we hope that this evidence-led review will add to the base of information. His characterisation of the Department, though, is wrong, as evidenced by the obvious and significant changes we have made to gambling over the last few years, with FOBTs last year, the changes to credit cards, VIP schemes, mandatory participation in GAMSTOP and the changes that we are announcing to the national lottery today, as well as a whole host of other issues. This Government have shown that we are willing to act when necessary.

Marco Longhi: I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. Clearly, having consumer protection at the heart of any new regulation is key, so will he describe what sort of action my constituents in Dudley North can take if they believe that an operator is in breach of social responsibility requirements?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. He is absolutely right that legitimate concerns have been raised by many, including in this place, about redress in the gambling sector. That is why the call for evidence will specifically ask for information and evidence on potential future redress procedures, and all options are open at the moment.

Patrick Grady: If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to take my first opportunity in the Chamber to pay tribute to one of my predecessors, Maria Fyfe, who served in this place as Member for Glasgow Maryhill between 1987 and 2001 and who sadly passed away on Friday. She was hugely respected during her time in this House and in the constituency, and our condolences, thoughts and prayers are with her family, friends and comrades at this time.
One of Maria Fyfe’s enduring legacies is the Community Central Hall on Maryhill Road, which is an incredibly important focal point, providing a wide range of services for local residents. Over the years—many years—it has benefited from lottery funding. What steps will the Minister take to ensure, especially in these difficult times and in the context of the announcement that he has made today, that such organisations are able to continue to get the funding they need, whether through the lottery or perhaps other, more sustainable sources?

Nigel Huddleston: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Maria Fyfe on behalf of the whole House; I know I can do so because the shadow Minister and I had a conversation about Maria before we came into the Chamber. She is a great loss. I know she was an incredible champion for women’s rights in particular and made a great impact on the British political landscape.
In terms of the lottery and the changes we are announcing today, the estimate is that the impact of 16 and 17-year-olds’ not being able to play the lottery will likely be something in the region of a £6 million potential loss to good causes. That is out of a total distribution of around £1.8 billion, so it is a relatively small amount.
I would like to say thank you to all those who have played the lottery and continued to play the lottery this year. Lottery revenue, and therefore distributions to good causes, has stayed up remarkably well, partly because it has been made very clear that much of the money has gone to institutions, bodies and groups in desperate need during coronavirus. I encourage people to continue to play the lottery safely, in the full knowledge that the money is well spent and well targeted.

Nigel Evans: May I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and the Minister, Nigel Huddleston, for their kind words about the late Maria Fyfe? She was a popular Member, who was well respected in all parts of the House and remained active in her local party after leaving this place. She will be missed by her family and all who knew her in Parliament and beyond. One of the best features of this place is how hon. Members appreciate and acknowledge the qualities and achievements of their predecessors, irrespective and regardless of party.

Nigel Mills: I hope the review will recognise the important role that high street gambling venues play in employing local people, and the Minister will recognise that it would be rather strange if the review had the damaging impact of moving gamblers from the relatively safe, supervised gambling premises on the high streets into the unregulated, unsupervised online world. I hope the review will look to bolster gambling on the high street, rather than on the internet.

Nigel Huddleston: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that many gambling entities take their responsibilities for safe gambling incredibly seriously and do a very good job. It is important, therefore, that we strike the right balance between enabling people to gamble safely and protecting those who are at risk. There is nothing wrong with legitimate gambling that is well regulated and enacted in accordance with minimising harm.

Kevin Brennan: We all know that the gambling industry got it very wrong on the campaign on fixed-odds betting terminals. Does the Minister agree that this review is an opportunity for the British gambling industry to get it right and produce an outcome that maximises the fun for people who want to gamble, but minimises the harm? We all know that prohibition does not work; what we need is effective reform.

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Gentleman, who I know is well versed in the industry and is very knowledgeable, is absolutely right. We must get the right balance here, and we expect the stakeholders, the key gambling operators, to play a role in providing evidence in this review. They have contributed already and made some voluntary changes, but I think we would all like to see further changes. They can make those voluntarily; there is always the option of legal regulation at the end of this review, but we do not necessarily need to wait for legislation for the gambling industry to do the right thing. We have seen some positive moves in the right direction and I welcome that constructive contribution. If we need to regulate and implement laws we will, but I would also like to see further changes voluntarily conducted by the industry, as I am sure he would too.

Nigel Evans: Last but never least, Simon Fell.

Simon Fell: Thank you for battling to the end of the call list, Mr Deputy Speaker; I appreciate it. I warmly welcome this statement. A few months ago, I met Furness Gamblers Anonymous, which does incredible work to support those who suffer most from addiction. I welcome the fact that such organisations will be able to feed into this review—that is right and proper—but what consideration has my hon. Friend given to the fact that many of those who have the most powerful stories might want to feed in anonymously?

Nigel Huddleston: My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I have a great deal of confidence that many of the charities and third-party organisations working in this sector—many of the key stakeholders—are very articulate and knowledgeable, and they have done a very good job of feeding in information already. We encourage them to do so, and I hope they will be able to provide further information, while recognising that some of this is extremely sensitive and therefore may need to be confidential. We recognise that information from all sources is valid, and I encourage all stakeholders to do what they can to get involved in the review.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to 39 questions for exactly one hour. We will now suspend for a few minutes.
Sitting suspended.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

BBC (Transparency)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Alun Cairns: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the BBC to publish specified information including all invoices over £500, expenditure by region, details of staff remuneration and exit payments, payments to personal service companies and other contractors, and the outside earnings of staff; and for connected purposes.
The BBC (Transparency) Bill is a positive move to support the BBC, to help it adapt and modernise its standards of governance, transparency and the need to meet the public’s expectations of value for money. The Bill will require the BBC to publish every invoice in excess of £500 and to take other steps to support greater transparency of its budget approaching £5 billion. It demands that the corporation take positive steps to support scrutiny across this important British flagship organisation. The Bill is aimed at helping to bring about a cultural change in the BBC, making it more open and transparent in support of everything it does.
I raise these issues as one who values what the BBC can achieve. As the Government consider the future of the licence fee, this debate and proposal are timely. They help the BBC meet the Secretary of State’s call as to how it intends to make savings and the fact that the organisation needs to reflect the entire nation. The context is that the licence fee is the most regressive form of taxation. That was the primary complaint against the poll tax, but of course this is a television tax, at a time when there is ever-increasing choice in the marketplace, with paid-for and free output. In considering the impact on households, particularly the poorest households at this time, it is vital that we scrutinise spend to secure the very best value for the licence fee for the public. Increased transparency will help the BBC respond to ever-increasing demands from the public.
Since 2010, all Government Departments and local authorities in England have been required to publish invoices in excess of £500. This key step helped to change spending patterns and the culture of how public bodies work. The move towards transparency facilitated competition, encouraged new approaches to spending, and attracted more organisations, particularly small businesses, to bid for contracts. Ultimately, it helped to drive better value for money and enhanced diversity in the supply chain.
Many Members will recall the BBC’s resistance to publish salaries of its star performers. Some called it a “poacher’s charter” at the time. As a strong supporter of publication of the data, I can remember even some senior Government colleagues resisting the call, for fear that it would lead to a levelling up of salaries. However, there was a determination among enough of us to ensure that it formed part of the agreement around the last charter renewal. Although the salary levels shocked many, equally importantly they disclosed the disparity between the pay of male and female presenters. As a result, we have seen salaries of some male presenters fall—some would argue by not enough—and the salaries of some female presenters increase. Now, whatever one’s view of the salary levels—yes, there remains much concern around the £1.75 million for one and £1.4 million for  another—at least we can have an honest debate about the value of the contribution they make. Public scrutiny also exposed wrongdoing that led to some staff pursuing cases for equal pay. This would not have happened without demands for greater transparency from the public.
Loopholes still exist, but the Bill’s influence extends well beyond the corporation’s current approach. We cannot ignore the fact that some of the BBC’s highest-profile shows and performers are contracted to BBC Studios. Expenditure data of BBC Studios is not shared in the same way, yet they still operate with the benefit of the licence fee. While that is the case, it is not like any other commercial organisation, and its expenditure should be scrutinised equally. Current standards of transparency only give us a fraction of the picture and lead to suspicion among the public. We should not have to go through the same debate again about an organisation that capitalises on the benefit that the licence fee brings. After all, it is public money, not the BBC’s money.
Elsewhere, concerns have been expressed over other payments the BBC has made, such as golden goodbyes, the payment of tax bills of some of its personalities, and a huge increase—£38 million—in the budget to collect the licence fee, which, if it is not paid of course, could result in a criminal record and even imprisonment. Some people believe that this policy is discriminatory. Many more women than men are charged, purely through their circumstance, so it seems that while some people benefit significantly from the licence fee, others are criminalised as part of the process.
The Government’s central mission since the election has been the levelling-up agenda, and I believe that the licence fee expenditure can play a part. Statistics show that half the BBC’s network programming budget is spent in London at a remarkably consistent level year in, year out. Although the north of England saw a boost in network programme spend to almost 20% in 2016, by last year that level had fallen to 14%. I also recognise that this is not the whole picture, because network programming is only part of the £5 billion budget.
Publication of all invoices over £500 would enable spending patterns to be analysed and all budgets to be considered. If we included contractors, commissions and post-production work, I expect that the London bias would be much greater than 50%. We should also question central administrative services, HR accounting, commissioning and other forms of spend. Those could easily be located across the country to follow the excellent, positive moves that the BBC has made towards the location of its production hubs.
This BBC transparency Bill would allow colleagues and members of the public to see where all the licence fee was being spent across the country and to form a view. Salford has seen significant growth over recent years, but it would be interesting to see whether that had been achieved to the cost of other blue wall areas in the north-west or the north-east. As an example, Cardiff has seen a welcome increase in commitment, but that centralisation in a city has come at cost to other parts of Wales. I would hate to see the growth in Manchester coming at cost to other parts of the region, unless, of course, there was a good reason and a value-for-money case behind the decision. The public could make a judgment.
These issues come into particular focus as the BBC responds to public concerns over a diverse range of challenges: Ofcom’s worrying report on impartiality,  the removal of free licences from the over-75s and the tactics used to secure the “Panorama” interview with the Princess of Wales 25 years ago, which, if true, will cause shockwaves across communities.
I pay tribute to Tim Davie for the changes that he is making, including stronger guidance on social media activity and on outside interests, as well as establishing a judge-led inquiry on the “Panorama” interview. All these are welcome, but we still need to revolutionise the BBC’s transparency culture. This Bill is intended to support Tim Davie to bring about change, and to help the BBC to regain the confidence of the public and to secure the very best value for money across all its activities.
We are approaching the BBC charter mid-term review. This would be the perfect time to see the changes that this Bill and the public call for.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alun Cairns, Julian Knight, Mr William Wragg, Mrs Heather Wheeler, Sir Bernard Jenkin, Dame Cheryl Gillan, Mel Stride, Jeremy Wright, Karen Bradley, Jackie Doyle-Price, Robert Halfon and Andrew Bowie present the Bill.
Alun Cairns accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January, and to be printed (Bill 226).

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,
That, at today’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to bring to a conclusion proceedings on the first Ways and Means resolution relating to Taxation (Post-transition Period) at 7.00 pm, if not previously concluded.—(David Rutley.)

Taxation (Post-transition Period)  (Ways and Means)

Northern Ireland (Ways and Means)

Nigel Evans: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition to the first motion.

Jesse Norman: I beg to move,
That provision (including provision imposing and regulating new duties of customs) may be made in connection with goods in Northern Ireland and their movement into and out of Northern Ireland (whether the movement begins or ends in Great Britain or elsewhere).
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.
In less than a month’s time, the UK will reach the end of the transition period and resume its place as a fully sovereign trading nation. As colleagues across the House will be aware, our negotiations with our counterparts in the EU continue. The Government remain cautiously optimistic about the conclusion of those talks. However, there is no doubt that we have a responsibility to the people of the United Kingdom to be ready for every outcome. The measures contained in the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill, which will be introduced and published following this debate, will play an important part in those preparations. The Bill will help to give confidence and certainty to the owners of businesses small and large throughout the United Kingdom after the end of the transition period.

Bill Cash: Will my right hon. Friend explain exactly how this matter we are dealing with now will be affected by the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about an hour ago, which also deals with the question of goods to be considered not at risk, and with questions relating to customs and tariffs, and the decision that appears to have been taken that the Government have agreed in the Joint Committee with Mr Šefčovič on a number of matters of which at the moment we only have an outline? I know the Chancellor will make a statement tomorrow, but perhaps my right hon. Friend could assist us in this matter, because it quite clearly has relevance to what he is saying now.

Jesse Norman: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the question, and I will touch on it in my remarks in my opening speech, but I should say to him that I am not better sighted on the breaking news than he is. He will have ample opportunity to address this matter tomorrow with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he comes to the House. As my hon. Friend will be aware, this matter was a product of a joint negotiation with the Commission, and the UK Government do not control the timing of that, and therefore the Chancellor will come at the earliest opportunity to the House to discuss the matter with colleagues from all political parties.
Today’s debate is on the important but technical ways and means motions that we need to pass before the Bill is debated tomorrow. If I may, I will talk a little about the Bill’s key elements in greater depth in order to  foreshadow what we are going to see over the next day or so. The Bill will take forward important changes to our tax system to support the smooth continuation of business across the UK. In particular, it will ensure that we meet our commitments to the people and businesses of Northern Ireland in relation to the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. It will help to uphold our pledge to protect the UK’s internal market by ensuring that Northern Ireland goods have unfettered access to Great Britain. To that end, the Bill will set out a new framework for the UK’s customs, VAT and excise systems following the end of the transition period, so that there are clear rules in place for goods movements.
If I may, I will start with the areas of the Bill that relate to customs. The motion before us relates to legislation that will be required for customs duties and processes to support the practical implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. I want to underline to right hon. and hon. Members that the legislation follows directly from the commitments made in the Government’s Command Paper on the implementation of the protocol, which was published in May of this year. The House will recall that the Northern Ireland protocol guaranteed no checks or controls at the Northern Ireland-Ireland land border and maintained the UK as a single customs territory.
The legislation will achieve its aims through a series of targeted changes to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, focusing on five specific areas. First, the changes will ensure that EU goods imported to Northern Ireland from the European Union—for example, goods moved across the Ireland-Northern Ireland border—are not subject to customs duties or processes.
Secondly, the changes will introduce a framework for charges on goods arriving in Northern Ireland, both from Great Britain and from the rest of the world, that are considered at risk of moving into the EU, subject to conditions agreed under article 5 of the Northern Ireland protocol.
Thirdly, these alterations to the TCTA will establish the framework for the UK Government to offer waiver and reimbursements for tariffs that are still incurred when that is needed.
Fourthly, the customs aspect of the legislation will ensure that the UK’s customs regime applies to goods moved from Northern Ireland to Great Britain if they do not qualify for unfettered access. Anti-avoidance rules will prevent goods from being re-routed through Northern Ireland in order to enter Great Britain without undergoing UK import processes.
Finally, the rules will ensure that customs enforcements, penalty, review and appeal provisions in relation to duty can continue to work alongside EU legislation in Northern Ireland and can apply where required in relation to movements of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
I will, if I may, respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who raised the point earlier. He was right to point to the EU-UK joint statement that has just been made. This sets out the agreement in principle regarding the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. The Government are therefore not introducing the so-called notwithstanding provisions to the taxation Bill. In the light of that, the Opposition’s proposed amendment to the first motion is unnecessary.
This Bill will also allow us to amend and modify certain provisions in relation to VAT and excise, including mechanisms to ensure that, in so far as is possible, VAT will be accounted for in exactly the same way as it is today. In addition, the Bill will make provision for amending current legislation for excise duty to be charged when excise goods, such as alcohol, tobacco and certain fuels, are removed to Northern Ireland from Great Britain.

Bill Cash: As my right hon. Friend knows extremely well, all these matters relating to the Northern Ireland protocol and the withdrawal agreement have direct relevance to the question of sovereignty. A statement was made by the Paymaster General yesterday relating to the question of negotiations, but the matters that have just been raised by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his statement to the press and to the public, but not to this House so far, have not been dealt with properly, because that statement has not yet been made to the House of Commons, although it has been published in general.
The point that I wish to make is simple and I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend addressed it. In withdrawing the “notwithstanding” provisions—clauses 45, 46 and 47 of the internal market Bill—which have a direct relevance to the question of sovereignty, does he have any comment to make and could he please help the House to understand, if these provisions are being withdrawn from the internal market Bill and will not be introduced in the taxation Bill, for which he does have responsibility, what are the implications for sovereignty with respect to what has been announced? I understand that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will make further comment tomorrow.

Jesse Norman: I thank my hon. Friend for having another go at this issue. Let me address the questions that he raises. I do not accept the point that he tries to make about whether this is, in some sense, an inappropriate procedure. As I have indicated, this is a product of a joint negotiation. The UK did not control the timing. It is as agreed with the other party to the debate and the discussion.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be coming to this House at the earliest opportunity once he returns from Brussels, in order to make a statement to discuss this and to receive scrutiny from my hon. Friend and from other Members of the House. That seems to me entirely appropriate. I cannot, of course, comment on matters relating to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, but what I will say is that, in withdrawing these “notwithstanding” provisions, we do not regard that UK sovereignty is being in any way impeded or undermined—on the contrary. Therefore, I think his concern can be and should be allayed, but I leave it to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to address those points tomorrow.

Alan Brown: The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee heard evidence this morning that the IT systems and processing procedures to allow the Northern Ireland protocol to be implemented on 1 January are not in place. Will the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to rectify that situation to meet the technical provisions that he is bringing forward?

Jesse Norman: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the work that we are doing in terms of legislation very much has as its counterpart a great effort to put in place all the procedures that may be required. Significant work has been done. He will be aware that there is a trader support service that works directly with people who will be importing into Northern Ireland to make it as close to a one-stop-shop arrangement as possible. What we are discussing today is the framework for the law under which those movements will operate.

John Redwood: The Minister has not yet reassured me about the sovereignty issue. Is it not the case that when any good in commercial quantity comes into the UK across any border—Northern Ireland or one of our marine borders—there are usually VAT and excise adjustments to be made and those take place by computer, not actually at the port of entry? Why do we need special arrangements here?

Jesse Norman: My right hon. Friend will be aware that under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol, we have agreed arrangements for Northern Ireland with the European Union. The goal of the legislation is to make sure that, as far as possible, it is a completely seamless and straightforward process for those who are trading and that it is unfettered in regards to trade from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. That seems to me to be a very important technical fact.

Sammy Wilson: On the VAT issue, which comes to the sovereignty issue once again, under article 8 of the Northern Ireland protocol, Northern Ireland traders will be subject to not just UK VAT rules, but EU VAT rules. Do the provisions that the Minister is now putting forward exempt Northern Ireland traders from being subject to dual VAT rules, given the costs that that would present and the huge administrative issues which would arise from it?

Jesse Norman: We do not expect the vast majority of any trade into Northern Ireland to be subject to any dual VAT arrangements. The whole purpose of these rules is to put in place the simplest and most straightforward arrangements that can be put in place and that replicate in so far as possible the current experience that people will have when they trade with the EU.

Sammy Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Jesse Norman: I will give way once more, and then I will make some progress.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister has said that he would not expect that Northern Ireland traders will be subject to VAT rules of another jurisdiction, but article 8 of the protocol makes it clear that they will be subject to a dual VAT regime. Do these provisions remove that requirement from all traders in Northern Ireland, or are we giving away some of our sovereignty by accepting that some parts of the United Kingdom and some sectors in that part of the United Kingdom will be subject to VAT rules from another jurisdiction?

Jesse Norman: I am afraid that inadvertently the right hon. Gentleman has misrepresented my position, or misdescribed my position. I am saying that we are  following the Northern Ireland protocol and, therefore, following any provisions that he refers to, but what we are doing is putting in place mechanisms that make them as easy and as facilitated as possible, so that the experience of someone trading in Northern Ireland should be as close as possible to that which they would have today.
The Bill will allow us to amend or modify certain provisions in relation to VAT and excise, including mechanisms to ensure that, in so far as possible, VAT will be accounted for in the same way as it is today, as I have said. In addition, it will make provision for amending current legislation for excise duty. Most of these changes are necessary to ensure that there is comprehensive VAT and excise legislation in place in relation to Northern Ireland at the end of the transition period.
In addition to those steps, there is also a small number of other taxation measures that need to be in place before the end of the transition period. They include provision for an increase in the rate of duty on aviation gasoline, which will apply across the UK. Otherwise known as avgas, the fuel is a form of leaded petrol predominantly used in private aviation.

Alan Brown: I notice the Minister said private aviation. Is the Treasury going to look at hydrocarbon fuel duty overall? Kerosene is zero duty rated, which is ridiculous, when motorists pay duty. We need a system in which the duty is applied to kerosene used by airlines, but given the fragile state of the flight industry, we should perhaps do that in a cost-neutral way to it and the Treasury, by incentivising the use of sustainable fuels. Is that something that the Treasury would look at?

Jesse Norman: I admire the hon. Gentleman’s ingenuity in bringing this matter into a debate that has no direct relevance to that issue at all. I, like him, would like to see as green and sustainable a world as we can arrange. This is a measure that does not relate to kerosene; it relates to avgas, and it has to do with the need to harmonise—or rather, to manage—the relationship between Northern Ireland and the UK, and that is what we are seeking to do. The requirement for an increase is set out in the Northern Ireland protocol—again, it relates only to Northern Ireland—but we are expanding it to the whole of the UK to ensure consistency, to avoid burdens on business, and to reduce compliance risks for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It is extremely small in its magnitude.
The Bill will also make provision for the introduction of a new system for collecting VAT on goods entering the UK. This includes moving the VAT collection on certain imported goods away from the border, and removing the VAT relief on low-value consignments. Together, these provisions will help to level the playing field for UK businesses, and they will protect the UK high street from VAT-free imports. The Bill will also take forward measures to ensure that the Government retain their ability to prevent insurance-premium tax avoidance after the end of the transition period. This will provide Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs with access to the same tools to prevent insurance- premium tax evasion—sorry, I should have said “evasion” rather than “avoidance” earlier—regardless of whether or not an insurer is based in an EU member state.
Finally, the Bill will make provision for new powers that will enable HMRC to raise tax charges under the controlled foreign companies legislation for the period from 2013 to 2018. This technical provision will deal effectively and efficiently with the legacy state aid decision relating to the period before the UK left the European Union.

Patrick Grady: I wonder why, if the Bill is so technical and dry, and does not have much relevance to the statements that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is making outside the House, we cannot see a copy. Why do we have to listen to the Minister tell us all about it, but none of his hon. Friends or my colleagues on this side of the House can prepare properly to respond?

Jesse Norman: I thank the hon. Gentleman. What I am actually doing is giving him a preview of a Bill that will be published in the normal way, after the resolutions debate has concluded. This is a debate on the resolutions required to lay the Bill, and we will do so as soon as the debate has concluded and the measures have been voted on. At that point, he will have a chance to see the Bill and its details.

Bill Cash: In view of the statement that has been made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—a press statement has been put out; we do not have enough notice of that at the moment—will my right hon. Friend explain whether the Bill, which we will receive in a few moments, or whenever the ways and means resolution has been completed, will contain those notwithstanding provisions? On the basis, as I understand it, that it will not, as the Minister responsible for the Bill which is being brought in, I think, would he not know that the notwithstanding provisions had been removed? Presumably, they are not contained in the Bill—or are they?

Jesse Norman: I salute my hon. Friend’s astonishing indefatigability, but I am afraid his memory plays him false. I have already said that the notwithstanding provisions will not feature in this Bill. I said that earlier in my speech, but I am sorry that that was not as clear as it should have been, because that is the state of affairs.
This Bill will help the UK to cement its position as an independent trading nation at the end of the transition period. It will give businesses throughout the UK certainty about the arrangements that will apply from 1 January next year, and it will play a part in safeguarding the unity and integrity of this country, both in the months ahead and long into the future. I therefore commend these resolutions to the House.

Bridget Phillipson: I beg to move amendment (a), at end add
“; but any such provision must not place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community which entered into force on 1 February 2020, and specifically its obligations under the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of that Agreement.”
It is 1,629 days since the UK voted to leave the European Union. In that time, our country has managed two general elections, and we are now on to our third Conservative Prime Minister. It is just 23 days until the  United Kingdom’s transition period following its exit from the European Union comes to an end, yet this afternoon, we still have little clarity on the Bill that the Government tell us they will present tomorrow to set the legal framework for future taxation in Northern Ireland, for value added tax, for aviation fuel duty, for insurance-premium tax and for state aid rules.
With less than four weeks to go, the single sheet of A4 in front of us is almost all the detail that the Government have shared with Parliament about their new tax plans for next month. The only other information we have is that, just over two hours ago, the Government confirmed that they would withdraw clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and that the provisions of the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill would reflect the same approach. The Minister recently tabled a written ministerial statement to that effect, although he offered little more this afternoon by way of further clarity.
The clock has been ticking ever more loudly. People in this country might reasonably have assumed that by this late date, it would already be clear what the Government’s plans for Britain’s future were. They might have assumed that by this late date, there would be a clear agreement on our future relationship with the European Union.

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Member makes an interesting point about the late stage of these negotiations. Who is she blaming for that—the United Kingdom Government or the European Union negotiators?

Bridget Phillipson: Time is ticking. We want to get a deal. We are frustrated that at this point, we still do not have a clear understanding about our future relationship. If the hon. Member shares those concerns, I suggest that he raises them with his own Prime Minister.
People in this country—especially those who live near our 300-mile border with the European Union, or those who live in or near our port towns and port cities —could be forgiven for expecting that trading relationships and rules on the movement of goods would long since have been finalised. Such reasonable assumptions would not have been partisan. After all, we have the Prime Minister’s own word for it: to leave with no deal would be a “failure of statecraft”.
One thousand six hundred and twenty-nine days is a very long time in which Ministers have chosen not to address the issues that leaving the European Union raises. It is 1,421 days since the Government announced that we would be leaving the single market. It is 1,350 days since the Government notified the EU of the United Kingdom’s decision to trigger article 50. It is 1,240 days since the Brexit talks began and 886 days since the Chequers plan was announced to the current Prime Minister by the previous Prime Minister. It is a little over 500 days since the Prime Minister took office. It is 320 days since the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 became law. They have had ample time.

John Redwood: Up to this point, Labour has always backed the EU position and not the UK position. Will the hon. Lady now use the Opposition’s voice to say that we should not give away our fish and our independent lawmaking?

Bridget Phillipson: That is, frankly, a ludicrous statement for the right hon. Gentleman to make.
With epic irresponsibility, successive Conservative Governments have wasted this time. Still businesses are not clear how they will be trading next month. Still people living along our land border with Ireland are unsure what daily life will bring in four weeks’ time. That epic irresponsibility comes in two forms. First, there is the immediate irresponsibility—the irresponsibility to businesses and working people; to everyone who needs to be able to plan their future and their finances; to everyone who wants the simple security, stability and certainty that a responsible Government should provide; to everyone who believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said on the “Today” programme a year ago tomorrow,
“We won’t need to plan for no deal because we will have a deal”;
and to everyone who believed the former International Trade Secretary when he told us that a trade deal with the EU would be
“one of the easiest in human history.”
That irresponsibility has meant months and years of uncertainty and insecurity for so many families and so many firms. Make no mistake: the Conservative party has now lost forever any claim to be the party of business. That irresponsibility means that people in Fermanagh, Galloway, Anglesey, Kent and all around our key ports today still face the risk of their roads being clogged with queues of lorries for months on end. That irresponsibility—a failure to engage with the problems of our country, to look ahead and to plan, to lead and to rise to the level of events—is sadly of a piece with the Government’s wider failures in recent months.
The country has suffered terribly from the pandemic: the worst economic hit in the G7; the worst level of excess deaths in Europe; a Government who are again and again caught on the hop, scrambling to catch up with the consequences of their own incompetence; a Government who never use the time they have to get ahead of the problems that they know are coming. It is all too familiar. It is the story of everything that this Government touch.
If the Government had got ahead of the issues that our country faces, we would have had a Budget, not a statement, in the summer. Instead of multiple episodes of the winter economy plan, we would have had a Finance Bill with proper time for debate, and proper time for businesses to plan on that basis. But just as the Government were behind the curve on covid, so they are behind the curve on Brexit. And here we are, with tax decisions for next month being bundled together into a last-minute Bill, which they have not yet even published—inaction, incompetence, and scrambling to fix the mess that they have created themselves, again and again, month after month.

Jesse Norman: I am awfully grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Could she possibly name any EU treaty that has not been concluded by the EU at the last minute?

Bridget Phillipson: I look forward to seeing in detail what the Government intend to bring forward on our future trading relationship, as that will determine so much around what our businesses will need for years into the future. I believe that our country is a great place  to do business. I want all our businesses to succeed into the future. That is why it is so important that we see a good deal for our country, and that the Government use the time they still have available to them well. They have not done so yet. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister later about exactly what the Government intend to set out in this legislation, because he has not really offered a great deal so far this afternoon.
The Government’s irresponsibility has not been limited to inaction and incompetence in the face of a ticking clock. There is also the greater irresponsibility that we have seen in recent months—an irresponsibility of which I fear the consequences may last for generations—and that is the irresponsibility with which this Government have made it clear that they are prepared to break international law. The world will not forget that just weeks ago the Government introduced legislation to tear up an international agreement that was signed less than a year ago. We welcome the fact that they now propose to withdraw those measures, but we fear that the damage has been done. The Government threatened to break the law to get their own way. What message does that send to Britain’s friends and allies with whom we have signed that agreement, with whom we have other agreements and with whom we hope to conclude future agreements?

Anthony Browne: You talked about the notwithstanding clauses as irresponsible and said that the damage may have been done, but would you like to join me in welcoming the Government reaching an agreement in the Joint Committee, as was announced just a couple of hours ago, on the issues that those clauses were intended to address?

Rosie Winterton: Order. Just a gentle reminder not to use the word “you” to the shadow Minister, because “you” means me.

Bridget Phillipson: In fact, I had just indicated that very point. Everyone on the Opposition Benches is delighted that the Government have in recent days managed to conclude a trade deal with North Macedonia, but what message does it send to our friends in the USA, who have made their position on this point very clear, that the Government no longer regard it as at all times non-negotiable that they will uphold the rule of law? It is because of our concerns on that point that we have tabled the selected amendment to the first resolution. We wish to append the text of the first resolution, at the end, with a clear limitation that provisions under that resolution may not place this country in breach of its obligations under law. The amendment would insert new text at the end of the current text of the first resolution to ensure that
“any such provision must not place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community…and specifically its obligations under the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of that Agreement.”
Obviously, in the last two hours the Government have announced that they have reached an agreement in principle with the European Union on that protocol and will therefore resile from their expressed intention to enact legislation that would have breached those agreements. Of course, Opposition Members welcome  that news, even as we find it astonishing that it should ever have been delivered and shambolic that it arrives so late. We would not, until this autumn, have ever imagined it necessary to make it clear in a resolution of the House that the Government, in exercising their powers, must obey international agreements into which they freely entered. Yet, as a result of the deep irresponsibility of the Government, that is precisely where we find ourselves today. We will not oppose the substantive resolutions, and we shall wait to see what further reassurances the Minister can provide before deciding whether to press our amendment to a vote.
We recognise that there needs to be a lawful basis for the collection of VAT, customs duties, aviation fuel duty and insurance premium tax, even while we do not yet know what the Government propose to table by way of a Bill. Let me repeat that: we do not yet know what the Government propose to table by way of a Bill—less than 24 hours before its Second Reading and Committee of the Whole House. Less than a month before we leave the European Union, we simply do not know with any certainty what measures the Government intend to set out. This extraordinary state of affairs undermines the ability of Members to give such important legislation the scrutiny it rightly deserves, not to mention the ability of businesses to plan. Is the Minister really telling us that it was not possible before today to set out the Government’s proposals on aviation fuel duty or insurance premium tax? Of course it was. These clauses were held back—they still are—so that the Government could, until a few hours ago, continue to brandish the threat of breaking international law as part of their negotiating tactics with the European Union, believing they have an ace up their sleeves, when in fact the whole world sees the Government as a pack of jokers.
Although we will not oppose these resolutions, we cannot and will not vote for any measures that the Government introduce that would breach agreements into which this country has entered with her friends and allies, because the consequences of such unlawful acts have been made clear to us. The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives said:
“The U.K. must respect the Northern Ireland Protocol as signed with the EU to ensure the free flow of goods across the border. If the U.K. violates that international treaty and Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord, there will be absolutely no chance of a U.S.-U.K. trade agreement passing the Congress.”

Sammy Wilson: I note the hon. Lady’s concern for Northern Ireland, the Good Friday agreement and the people of Northern Ireland, but does she not recognise that if the protocol goes through in its present form, the EU has made it clear that it will require measures to be implemented that have already led to supermarkets saying that they will no longer operate in Northern Ireland—that they will withdraw from Northern Ireland? The goods that would be supplied from here to Northern Ireland will no longer be supplied. I am only talking about one limited area. How can she defend that protocol, which would so adversely affect people in Northern Ireland?

Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand the point he raises, but I am afraid I do not share his assessment of the situation. I say to him sincerely that I think it is important that we have certainty around this area. The Government’s approach on this has been misguided and has caused  real damage. However, while understanding his concerns, I am afraid I do not recognise his assessment of the situation.
We hope the commitments announced earlier today by Ministers will be further repeated in this place, and that the assurances regarding the withdrawal of the offending clauses of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill will be honoured. Ensuring that the UK’s forthcoming tax legislation does not breach our international treaty commitments, and in so doing put the Good Friday agreement at risk, is the sole purpose of our amendment. I do not doubt that there will be those on the Government Benches who regard such an amendment as weakening their hand, even as they too welcome the Government’s recent announcement. To them, seeking to legislate to break international law may have seemed a way of showing that they mean business. The delusion would be comic were the consequences not so grave. A negotiation in which one party makes it clear that it cannot be trusted—not inadvertently, but by what passes for strategy—is not one on which strong future relationships will be built, nor one that will commend us to other nations as a reliable partner for trade or security. What the Government have tossed away this autumn in the search for a fleeting advantage is a reputation that will take our country many years to regain.
Ways and Means resolutions enable the House to give effect to the taxation decisions of the Government for the year ahead. Some of those taxes and duties will fall more heavily on some of us than others. But for the Government’s extraordinary irresponsibility, which today’s events illustrate so powerfully, I fear the price will be paid by all of us, not just next month or next year but for many years to come.

Bill Cash: I have already made a number of comments to the Minister in charge of this motion, also in respect of the Bill that we have not yet seen. It seems quite extraordinary, if I may say so, that we are being asked to give such blanket agreement to the Ways and Means resolution, which is the manner in which the money is raised to deal with the questions that arise in respect of the Bill, when we have not actually seen a copy of the Bill itself and therefore do not know what the provisions refer to.
I see, for example, that the motion includes reference to amending section 9A of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, part 3 of the Value Added Tax (Place of Supply of Goods) Order 2004, schedule 4B to that Act, which relates to call-off stock arrangements, section 18A of that Act, which affects fiscal warehousing, and paragraph 114(2) of schedule 8 to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. It also includes proposals relating to the rate of fuel duty on aviation gasoline, amending section 6(1A)(aa) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979. It also deals with value added tax questions relating to such matters, and makes provision regarding value added tax in cases involving
“supplies of goods by persons established outside the United Kingdom that are facilitated by online marketplaces”,
or
“the importation into the United Kingdom of goods of a low value.”
There are also provisions relating to the insurance premium tax in respect of the liability of the insured, amending section 65 of the Finance Act 1994, and matters relating  to the recovery of unlawful state aid in respect of controlled foreign companies, in particular dealing with the Commission decision of 2019 relating to state aid
“concerning the CFC Group Financing Exemption.”
That gives some indication of the breadth, and also the depth, of these matters. It is very difficult, to put it bluntly, to dissect, comment on and make what I would describe as a full analysis of a provision that we have not yet seen, and as I had not actually seen these—nor did I know that they were going to be included until I got notice of them just now—I am not in a position to be able to do more than to say that I regard the whole question of these provisions as something that will obviously have to be dealt with when we actually see the Bill. What we have not seen, we cannot really comment on. It is really almost Alice in Wonderland, isn’t it? The fact remains that there are important issues of principle in relation to all this, and the notes that I have received raise some interesting questions. I do not know whether those notes have been made generally available.

John Redwood: Will my hon. Friend comment on the sovereignty issue, which is at the heart of all this? I was not satisfied by the Minister’s reply, when my hon. Friend was asking very good questions. Does he share my worry that we have not solved the sovereignty issue over Northern Ireland in this provision, and that we are making it worse?

Bill Cash: My right hon. Friend might have anticipated that I would raise this very question with the Minister, as I did when he was in mid-flow at the beginning of these proceedings. That was the question I asked, and my right hon. Friend has now referred to it. I am extremely supportive of the Government in relation to Brexit and to the statements that have repeatedly been made not only by the Prime Minister but by other members of the Cabinet, including the Paymaster General in the statement that she made yesterday, in which the word “sovereignty” was completely reaffirmed and stated over and over again, and I take the Government at their word. But of course issues of the kind that we are dealing with do get somewhat obscured sometimes by provisions of legislation, particularly when we have not seen the legislation but are asked to comment on it. That makes life quite difficult in being able to identify with precision exactly what effect this would have on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, save only to say that yesterday the House of Commons, by a majority of something like 90, passed provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, and one would therefore have expected the Bill that is under consideration now—which must have been prepared yesterday when we were debating the other one, because otherwise it could not have been printed—to have contained similar provisions.
I am left in a bit of quandary until we can see that this Bill does not contain the notwithstanding provisions that were put in yesterday, which the House decided on, in principle, in the interests of sovereignty. I know a bit about that. I was also responsible for section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which was passed by a majority of 120 with notwithstanding provisions in it at the beginning of the year. So for practical purposes, the principle of whether notwithstanding provisions are needed has already been established.
I repeat that I am very supportive of the Government and very supportive of the Prime Minister, and I make that absolutely crystal clear, but that makes it absolutely essential for us to have a very clear understanding about the reasons for withdrawing the provisions that were passed in respect of this Bill and were passed in respect of the other Bill yesterday, on the same principles of sovereignty as would need to be put forward under section 38 of the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act, which, by the way, is still in statute and can still be used —and will be, I hope, as we move forward.
The Government are withdrawing these provisions of the Bill, which is presumably done for some reason that I cannot quite get but is to do with managing to assuage some of the hostility in the House of the Lords and the hostility that has led the European Union and the Commission to threaten legal proceedings unless we withdraw them. No doubt all this is being done in an attempt to arrive at some sensible or other kind of conclusion and settlement.

John Redwood: rose—

Bill Cash: But I reserve judgment on that until I have heard what my right hon. Friend says.

John Redwood: Is it not up to Parliament to withdraw the provisions that we were asked to support, and did support, yesterday? Was there not a long debate in which my hon. Friend made a contribution, while I was arguing the case elsewhere? Were we wasting our time? It seems to me that Parliament needs to be asked again if Ministers have changed their minds.

Bill Cash: Indeed.
It is extremely important to point out that these notwithstanding provisions are directly related to the issue of sovereignty, but also related to the substance of our leaving the European Union. Not until we see a copy of the Bill will we be able to make the judgment about the extent to which they would impair or affect that sovereignty. We will have to wait until tomorrow to see exactly what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster presents to the House. We have an outline, but no more than that. The question of sovereignty will no doubt be much discussed tomorrow during his statement.
I heard the Opposition spokesman declaiming, in line with the amendment that they have tabled, that this is all about breaches of international law. I have to say to the hon. Lady that in the context of the continuous provisions on a whole range of matters, including Finance Bills that the Labour party was responsible for bringing in when it was in government, there are stacks—hosts—of treaty overrides. As I said in my contribution yesterday, such overrides have been passed as Labour party proposals when it was in government, by the coalition in 2010 and the years following that when the Liberal Democrats were involved, and also in some Conservative measures that have been passed that are overrides of international law. I pointed out yesterday that it has been done in the past for very good reasons of national interest, including economic national interests, as they clearly have been in the past. Some of them were hugely important constitutional issues—for example, affecting the independence of India and Pakistan—and there were other provisions that I will not go into in detail now, but I have put them all out there on the record.
The extraordinary thing is putting down this amendment based on so-called breach of international law, when actually the Labour party itself has done exactly the same in consistency with—not inconsistent with, but in consistency with—international law. Article 46 makes this abundantly clear. I was very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) conceded that point on the Floor of the House yesterday when he said, at last, that he was going to support the Government on this question. Lord Judge, a very distinguished judge in the House of Lords—the ex-Lord Chief Justice—who has been leading the argument on the question of international law, has said, in effect, that in principle he knew there was a moment at which there were circumstances whereby a given Government would be entitled to take such steps as were necessary in order to protect the national interest.
Nothing could be more important than protecting our sovereignty. That is what this whole Brexit is about. It is about being able to ensure our having left the European Union lawfully by having passed all the Acts of Parliament—and the House of Lords having passed all those Acts of Parliament as well—and in addition to that, having had a referendum on the votes of the people of this country, which itself was based on the authorisation by Parliament that the referendum should be allowed to take place. That was passed in the House of Lords and the House of Commons—in the House of Commons, incidentally, by six to one—and it was followed, as I have said, by a series of other enactments.
The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 was passed by 499 to 120, including by the Labour party, so there should not be any question about that, and I do not believe that the Labour party has anything to gain by trying to argue that somehow or other we have unlawfully left the European Union, which is what it seems to be implying in its amendment. Then we move on to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which, as I pointed out in an intervention, was passed by 120 in this House on Second Reading. It contained the notwithstanding provisions, in section 38, that I had proposed to the Government on 17 October last year. For all these reasons, we have not only lawfully left, but lawfully left on the basis of our sovereignty, which has been endorsed not only by the referendum and by the voters of this country, but by their representatives in this House as the House of Commons. They are elected, unlike the House of Lords, and in the House of Commons they have endorsed these provisions by massive majorities. So what on earth would be the purpose of removing provisions that ensure that our sovereignty can be maintained?
I can almost hear somebody on the Government Benches perhaps thinking to themselves, “Well, they’re not needed because, actually, the situation has now been firmly dealt with in the Joint Committee”. Of that we know nothing, more or less, because I have asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster three times to appear in front of our European Scrutiny Committee, and thus far he has not come on these matters. He knows that, and I have had some very diligent, shall we say, correspondence with him on his not attending, although he did allow the Paymaster General to come and she did appear before us a few weeks ago.
The point I am making is that this is a critical time in our history. This is the moment when we regain our sovereignty. It is not just a philosophical statement or a  constitutional theory; it is actually about the practicality of how this country is governed. It is as simple as that. We are governed by a constitutional arrangement under which, through parliamentary government, the Members of Parliament who are who are elected by the voters pass laws that are imposed upon the people by the consent of those representatives. It is as simple as that.

John Redwood: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when his admirable clause 38 was tried on the previous Prime Minister, she rejected it on the grounds that it would mean that Parliament could unilaterally override the withdrawal agreement if it wished, and she did not want that?

Bill Cash: Absolutely, which was precisely why I brought it forward. It solved a lot of problems.
I must say that the reasons for the notwithstanding provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill were based on the same principle of sovereignty, and the same applies to the taxation Bill, in which it was understood that the notwithstanding provisions would be included. I have not seen the Bill yet—I wait to see it with interest—but I am assuming that the adjustment will not appear. Therefore, I reserve my position with respect to the question of the notwithstanding arrangements, because I need to be satisfied that there is no impugnment of our sovereignty by virtue of the removal of those provisions in this Bill. It is as simple as that. I could say much more, but I do not think it will be strictly speaking necessary for me to do so, because I have dealt with all the matters of principle that arise.
I am not quite sure how authoritative the material I have been supplied with is, only because it was given to me by somebody associated with the Government and I am not at all sure whether it is in the Library of the House of Commons; all I can say that it is quite extensive and that it deals with a lot of matters that the Minister has already dealt with and that no doubt will be further examined when we get to see the Bill itself. However, I notice that it does include such matters as the fact that, whatever the outcome of the FTA and joint committee negotiations,
“we have an obligation to the people of Northern Ireland to make sure that they continue to have unfettered access to the UK under all circumstances, to ensure that there are no tariffs on goods remaining within the UK customs territory and to ensure that there is no legal confusion about the fact that, while Northern Ireland will remain subject to EU state aid rules for the duration of the protocol, Great Britain will not be subject to EU rules in this area. That is the Government’s overriding priority.”
I have heard that said before, in one form or another, but I think we need to note that that is what this Bill does. There are other provisions relating to Northern Ireland customs and Northern Ireland VAT and excise on goods, and a provision that says:
“VAT will be accounted for the same way as it is today, with Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK’s VAT and excise system”—
we will check that when we see the Bill.
“HMRC will continue to be responsible for the operation and collection of the revenues, which will not be passed on to the EU”—
a-ha!—
“while Parliament will remain responsible for setting VAT and excise rates across the UK.”
I am not going to be entirely negative about all this; I never am. I rely with confidence on what the Government have said with respect to sovereignty and with respect to tax.
These are important questions. I have confidence in the Prime Minister. I have confidence in the fact that we have had a general election and that the manifesto made the whole of the Brexit question quite clear to the people who voted, giving us a majority of around 80 and, in my own case, as much as 63% of the vote in my constituency, for which I am deeply grateful to my constituents. All I can say is that we will be watching all these matters with great diligence and with a constructive approach, because we hope and trust that, when we have been through the full proceedings on this Bill and, indeed, finalised the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, that confidence will be entirely justified and there will be no impairment of our sovereignty as the United Kingdom, which is what this is all about.
I will conclude simply by saying this. Not since 1688 have we been faced with a situation of such historic importance, other than when we went into the European Union under the false pretences of a White Paper that turned out, unfortunately, to be misleading the British people. There have been two world wars where people have tried to take over this country by force of arms—in particular Germany—and I simply say this: this is the most important moment in our history in the last 250 years, whereby we have regained the sovereignty that was embedded in the arrangements after 1688-89.
By gradual evolution, we developed parliamentary government and representative government. We are described as the mother of Parliaments, as John Bright put it. This is our sovereignty, and we have absolute, total determination—as I understand it, so does the Prime Minister—to maintain that. It is about democracy; it is about freedom. It is what Churchill was proud of; it is what Margaret Thatcher was proud of; it is what we are proud of. I simply make this final point: we will maintain our sovereignty at any price.

Alison Thewliss: It is a pleasure, I guess, to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). He was talking about 1688; I think we travelled there in real time, but I thank him very much for the comments that he made.
This time last year, we were all in the throes of a slightly surreal Christmas general election, pounding the streets and chapping the doors in the freezing cold, listening carefully to the concerns of our constituents. My constituents were deeply concerned about the state the UK was in, and they remain concerned today.
It is difficult to believe that we are a full year on since the Conservative party won a majority in this place with promises of a Brexit deal that was “oven ready”. I say it is difficult to believe because we are now just a couple of weeks from the end of the transition period and there still is not anything of substance in the oven. I am not even convinced, actually, that the Government have an oven. The only thing the Prime Minister has driven a bulldozer through lately is his own reputation, treating these negotiations as a game and continuing to pursue a  no-deal Brexit in the middle of a global pandemic as households and businesses in this country struggle with the second wave of covid-19.

Anthony Browne: I wonder whether the hon. Member would like to join me in making it clear to the British public that the phrase “oven ready” was used about the withdrawal agreement, which we did indeed vote into law one week after the general election, not about the trade deal. The Prime Minister never described the trade deal as “oven ready”. Would the hon. Member like to join me in making it clear to the British public that that is the case?

Alison Thewliss: It is very difficult to understand anything that the Prime Minister says because he swivels around on just about everything that he has ever said. He had two positions on whether we should leave the EU, so who knows whether he has an oven-ready deal, an oven or even a microwave? Who can really tell? It is quite difficult to establish that. Perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, we could have a TV mounted in the Chamber somewhere showing BBC live news so that we can keep track of what is happening in the negotiations, as the new Brexit countdown calculator they have in the corner ticks away.
It is no secret that these negotiations have been difficult and that the UK Government have not helped themselves as we have gone through them. The UK’s leaving the EU, because of the attitude that the UK has taken, was always going to be the messiest of messy divorces, but the Government have done absolutely no favours in the way they have approached things.
The hon. Member for Stone talked for 21 minutes, I think, about things that he could not see in terms of the Bill that is supposed to be being brought forward tomorrow. The Minister said from the Dispatch Box that he was no better sighted on where things are at with the negotiations than the hon. Member for Stone, who also regards this whole situation as extraordinary. The Minister says that this is going to be debated in the normal way, but there is nothing normal about this situation here today. We go to the Public Bill Office and ask it for advice on what is in the Bill and it does not know; we ask the Library what is in the Bill and it does not know. None of this is their fault; it is the Government’s fault that we do not know what is in this Bill. It is an absolute farce.
These six resolutions and this phantom Bill are a prime example of the procedural chaos that has dominated the Government’s handling of Brexit. Before the taxation Bill has even been published, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says he
“will keep under review the content”
relating to the Northern Ireland protocol. Yesterday, a statement from 10 Downing Street stated:
“Good progress continues to be made regarding the decision as to which goods are ‘at risk’ of entering the EU market. Talks continue this afternoon. In the light of those discussions, the government will keep under review the content of the forthcoming Taxation Bill.”
At 1.16 this afternoon, we had a tweet from Maroš Šefčovič, one of the negotiators, but we still do not know the implications of today’s announcement and it is very difficult to see exactly what is going to happen. The joint statement talks about determining the criteria for goods to be considered not “at risk” of entering the EU, but we do not know what that means. It mentions  an agreement in principle, but the Government have not been very principled in the way they have approached anything. How the EU can trust them I do not know.

Kevin Hollinrake: Every business person would ideally like to have seen the deal done and dusted some months before, but on the basis that the European Union made a commitment to an ambitious free trade agreement, are there no words of criticism that the hon. Lady is willing to use regarding its part in these negotiations that are taking so long?

Alison Thewliss: I think the EU has been more than patient for some time, to try to get some kind of agreement and something sorted out. The UK Government have held two general elections in that time, and we have had several different Prime Ministers. The Government have been an absolute shambles from start to end, and that is where we are today.

Alan Brown: Despite the valiant efforts of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), is it not the case that if the EU was not so patient, we would already have suffered a no-deal crash out months ago, perhaps even a year ago?

Alison Thewliss: The EU has done everything it can because it knows it is everybody’s interest to have a deal.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Alison Thewliss: I will make some progress and bring the right hon. Gentleman in later on. It is interesting that Tony Connelly from RTE said that the EU nations are watching closely to ensure that the relevant clauses are effectively withdrawn from the Bill. If I were them, I would be looking very dubiously at the UK Government on that issue, because we do not know what is going to happen.
It is quite surreal to prepare for a Bill that we have not yet seen, and from which clauses that do not yet exist could still be removed or added, after being rubber-stamped by the House. The six ways and means resolutions on one side of A4 paper represent a significant volume of very detailed VAT resolutions. Resolution 6 alone refers to a Commission decision that runs to some 39 pages on the treatment of CFC group financing exemptions to state aid, and there is still no detail on specifically how the Government wish to amend the substantial pieces of taxation legislation.
We would have advance notice of a Finance Bill, for example. We would have Second Reading, Committee, and Report over an extended period. That time would allow evidence and engagement with stakeholders, but that is not so with these resolutions. To take an example, the Finance Bill earlier this year contained a solid five and a half pages on the detail of call-off stock arrangements. We debated them in the Bill Committee at great length, and it was tremendously exciting.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Alison Thewliss: If the right hon. Gentleman can tell me something about call-off stock arrangements and what the Government are proposing, I will let him in.

John Redwood: I would like to know why the hon. Lady supports the EU position on everything. On the question of fish, does she support the general EU smash-and-grab raid for most of the fish, or does she prefer the French version, which is to take practically the whole lot?

Alison Thewliss: I would prefer it if the Government would listen to the concerns of west coast fisheries in Scotland that do not want their fish to die and rot in lorries at Dover because the Government have not sorted out the trading customs.
Members of the House are expected to scrutinise the new tax regime in a fast-tracked timetable with no time for debate or consultation with businesses. There are a host of details in the VAT resolutions. I went through them this morning. I copied them and pasted them, and took them from the VAT regulations that currently exist. That runs to some 20 pages of detail on those VAT resolutions. [Interruption.] I can see the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton waiting for me to read through those 20 pages, but I am not going to do that. I will send him a copy if he would like to read it over later. We will certainly be further forward than we are with the Government concluding anything.
There is a lot of detail in the resolutions and we need to know what exactly is going to happen with them. There are issues on penalties relating to VAT in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. There are issues to do with the importing of goods as well, and how that is going to work. The guidance on the resolution
“Value added tax (online sales by overseas persons and low value importations)
That provision may be made for the purposes of value added tax in cases involving—
(a) supplies of goods by persons established outside the United Kingdom that are facilitated by online marketplaces, or
(b) the importation into the United Kingdom of goods of a low value.”
runs to 11 pages on the UK Government’s website. There are 11 pages of detail, but we do not know what the Government are proposing to change here. We do not know what the Government are proposing to do here and that is very unfortunate. The issue really does follow on from that: we do not know what the Government are going to do and we do not have adequate time to scrutinise all the papers and see what is in them. We do not know whether the Government’s drafting will actually work, when it has been done in such haste.

Patrick Grady: My hon. Friend is providing a ray of sunshine in between the dark clouds of the Maastricht rebels who are featuring so heavily on today’s call list. Is it not the case that it is not just us and the Opposition who do not know what is going on? Clearly, the Government do not know what is going on either. The Bill has not been published because there is a massive copy-and-paste job going on somewhere in Her Majesty’s Treasury right now, so that they can have it ready. That is probably why we are going to be speaking until 7 pm—they will need that length of time to get the thing finalised, printed and in the Vote Office.

Alison Thewliss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps I should send the Minister my copy-and-paste job from earlier and that would help him out.
But this really matters. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) talked earlier about people, supermarkets, food arriving and places, and what the impact will be. The Road Haulage Association’s director, Martin Reid, has warned:
“Regardless of whether there is a deal or not, there will still be customs requirements and it’s the customs requirements that will cause the delays. Those delays could run on for at least the first quarter”
of next year. The post-transition situation will be chaotic and that will be devastating for business, particularly the way the Government are going about it. Further to that, speaking to The Press and Journal, Mr Reid said the fact that issues still remain to be resolved is shocking:
“The hauliers’ handbook that they produced contains links that take you nowhere, so we’re nowhere near the level of information that is required basically. For goods moving to Ireland, we are still not 100% sure what it’s going to look like; as for moving through the short straits, we still have a great deal of concern as to the government’s capability either to have the right people in place.”
Nothing the Minister has said this afternoon—or indeed, the scuttling that is going on, on the Government Front Bench just now—gives us any reassurance as to what is going to happen.
Business bodies in Northern Ireland’s legislative committees have expressed concern about potential compliance costs for the future operation of VAT and excise, and nobody knows what it is going to look like. Businesses and farmers in Northern Ireland have been clear that they are not ready for a no-deal scenario. They have said it will place them under unbearable and unnecessary strain. The UK Government are providing no technical detail and very little guidance to those businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) pointed out so well earlier on, the IT system to support all of that just is not there. We heard similar evidence to the Treasury Committee. Businesses have begged the UK Government to reach an agreement, but the UK Government have indulged in bad faith negotiating at every turn.

Bill Cash: On the question of bad faith, I do not know whether the hon. Lady heard what I said yesterday, but I will say this: there has never been a more egregious example of bad faith than the manner in which the EU sought to bounce the Government in the middle, and indeed at the end, of the negotiations. It is quite outrageous and in itself warrants the use of article 46, which is there to terminate the agreement if the Government cannot get what they need to preserve our sovereignty.

Alison Thewliss: I do not really agree with the point the hon. Gentleman makes. That probably will not surprise him. The difficulty with all of this is that the UK has never really known what it wanted.

Bill Cash: Sovereignty.

Alison Thewliss: The hon. Gentleman says sovereignty. I am not sure he really understands that either.
The UK Government have not known what they wanted from this situation from the start. I commend the Brexiteers on the Conservative Benches. They have taken this as far as it can go and they have got what they wanted. Perhaps they knew what they wanted, but the  Government have not had a clue. That has been clear all the way through and that is part of the reason we are in the difficulties we are in.
The resolutions in front of us do not represent clever negotiating tactics by the UK Government. On the Opposition Benches, on the Government Benches and in Brussels, everyone can see quite plainly the Government’s recklessness in this scenario. At every stage of this laborious and unnecessary process, they have sought to undermine trust in proceedings. Any remaining shreds of goodwill that the UK Government have internationally are in absolute tatters. The UK Government are at the wind-up at a time when we no longer have time to waste. An EU diplomat quoted in the Financial Times this morning said that the moves of the UK Government amounted to the UK
“trying to use rogue behaviour as leverage”.
Presumably the UK Government have caved today in taking the clauses out of the Bill, but we have to ask why they were there in the first place. How does it help us to say that we will break international law? It is a pretty basic principle that the Government have breached. Presumably, if the negotiations take a further slide backwards, the clauses can be put back in again. With apologies to Mark Durkan, because it is the kind of thing he would have said, it is hokey-cokey legislation.
It is perhaps not a surprise to those of us in Scotland that the Prime Minister and this Tory Government would sell a devolved nation down the river in order to appease those on the more extreme fringes of their party—

Jesse Norman: Did the hon. Lady say that the Government had sold someone down the river?

Alison Thewliss: Devolution. If the Minister was paying attention, I said devolution has been sold down the river—

Jesse Norman: That is a most inappropriate term to use, if I may say so.

Alison Thewliss: But devolution has been fundamentally undermined—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will like that phrasing better. Devolution has been fundamentally undermined by the actions of the Government in the internal market Bill yesterday, ripping up the very principles by which devolution was established 20 years ago. Scotland did not vote for any of this—not in the EU referendum, not in either of the snap general elections this Government have called, and not in the European elections—not once, but we are being dragged off the cliff edge anyway.
Even before the pandemic, modelling suggested that a no deal would decrease Scotland’s GDP by 6.1%, considerably more than even the 2008 crash. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that a no deal Brexit on 1 January would inflict a cost on the UK economy of about £40 billion, and increase unemployment by 300,000 next year. All this while the UK economy is already among the worst performing in the OECD due to the UK Government’s shambolic handling of covid.
Jim Harra, the head of HMRC, confirmed at the Treasury Committee yesterday that doing the paperwork alone for this will cost business an eye-watering £7.5 billion a year. That is £7.5 billion that businesses will not have to spend on improving their businesses, increasing staff wages or investing in productivity. There will be 265 million   customs forms after Brexit, compared with 54 million now. What a complete and utter waste of everyone’s time and money, and nobody put that on the side of a bus.
Not content with inflicting damage on our economy, these resolutions and the behaviour of the UK Government throughout this process permanently damage and erode trust in the devolution settlement. We are seeing a shameless power grab of state aid powers that should have been devolved, quite rightly, to the Scottish Parliament.
There is still time to pull back from the no deal cliff edge. The choice is entirely the Prime Minister’s to make. It is as clear as day that Westminster is acting against Scotland’s interests. It is little wonder to any of us on these Benches that the majority of Scots now support independence. One of those people who supported Scottish independence relentlessly was Craig Munro, who passed away just recently, and our thoughts are with his sister Gail and his son Sam. They will be devastated that he will not be here to see independence when it comes, because it is there to be won for all of us. More and more people are seeing the urgent need for independence to protect Scotland’s place in Europe and all the powers that we have come to enjoy through devolution. Scotland will complete that journey. The UK Government’s behaviour through all of this is only hastening that journey’s end.

John Redwood: I declare my business interests in the register.
I came to this debate expecting to hear the Minister set out a vision of post-Brexit Britain, how the taxation system will be transformed and how VAT will be changed to encourage our businesses and give our consumers a better time. Instead, we have six resolutions that are mainly about trying to make sure that the Government can get even more VAT out of people after we have left than before. The Government could have done that at any time. Where is the vision that we will have a much better tax system after Brexit?
We are taking back control of VAT, which was almost entirely under EU control. The Government say, for example, they wish to be a green Government, but these measures will not even take VAT off a whole series of green products, which should not have VAT on them if the Government are trying to encourage people to insulate their homes, change their boiler controls or put in more fuel-efficient ways of heating their homes. The Minister has failed this very simple test.
We have six resolutions about a piece of legislation which we are not allowed to see until after the debate. It is a piece of legislation that will be very complex, because it is mainly about the techniques of raising revenue and making sure that no revenue escapes. However, the Brexit voters out there—the majority in the country—have had to vote three times now for Brexit to make it clear to the House of Commons that they want even this House of Commons to be in charge, even though there are still too many MPs on the Opposition Benches who hate the idea of this country legislating for and governing itself and think that every law that comes from Europe is wise and necessary and every law that is made here is somehow inappropriate.
We want our Ministers to say, “No, we are the people’s representatives. We had the majority in the election and we are going to transform our country’s  economy, recover the economy from covid-19 and level up the country.” That requires bold and visionary leadership and it certainly requires pretty fundamental tax changes. VAT rates on some things are too high. VAT should not be imposed on some things at all. We need to remodel that tax. We need to look again at our corporate taxes, where a series of judgments by the European Court of Justice prevented this country levying all the corporate taxes that it wished to raise.

Patrick Grady: I probably should not rise to the bait, but does the right hon. Gentleman honestly think that the way the Government are treating the House tonight is an expression of parliamentary sovereignty? Is this what he really campaigned for over all these years, so that the Government could fast-track major financial legislation, bounce it through the House of Commons, not give us the information we are looking for and not subject it to proper debate? Is that what he campaigned for for all these years?

John Redwood: The answer is that I campaigned for this Parliament to take control and use it in the interests of the people, which is why I am making the speech that I am making. Why does the hon. Gentleman not listen to it instead of planning an intervention for a speech I am not making? I am urging the Government to take back control and use it in the way that the public would like to see them use it.
I must take up the point of sovereignty. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is quite right to go back to that. The simple truth about Brexit is that Brexit voters knew exactly what we were voting for. We understood the slogan “Take back control”, and we think control—the right of self-government, the right to trust people in these Houses of Parliament to make decisions for us or the right to throw them out if they are useless—is fundamental to our freedoms and living in a democracy. You do not bargain those away in some kind of dispute about tariffs. You do not argue about those in the context of making compromises.
This is the fundamental truth of Brexit. Like practically every other country in the world that is not a member of the EU, we just want to be free to make those decisions and laws that we can make and have representative institutions—a great Parliament—in order to do that. We clearly need to train some of the parliamentarians in the idea that we can make better laws here than people can make for us abroad and that we can modify European laws that we currently have so that they work in our interests better.

Alison Thewliss: Does making better laws not start with letting MPs see a Bill before it exists?

John Redwood: I do not disagree with the hon. Lady. I have said that I want to debate a real Bill. I am giving ideas to the Minister because I do not think what he has in mind for this Bill is going to quite suit me. I want to pep it up. I want to make it more exciting so that we can go out to the public and say, “This is the party that is going to level up. This is the party that knows how to recover an economy that has been damaged by covid”, and that requires lower taxes and different taxes and requires that we use the powers that only the House of Commons has. The House of Lords has very limited  abilities to intervene, and on this occasion I am very pleased about that, because it nearly always wants to take the European answer, and the European answer is the high unemployment answer, the high taxation answer and the very complicated taxation answer.
VAT is an extremely complicated tax. We had to adopt its complications and we are now trying to add to those complications to try to avoid items slipping through. We are trying in these proposals to deal with small transactions that sometimes escape the net. They try to find ways of making online organisations, for example, responsible for levying tax between two people trading with each other.

Alan Brown: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the levelling-up agenda. On rough figures, we have had 50 years of the EU, 20 years of devolution and over 300 years of the Union. Why are devolution and the EU to blame for the requirement to level up when, quite clearly, the Union is at the heart of the problem?

John Redwood: I do not agree, and nor did Scottish voters when they were asked this question. We do have a great democratic country and I was a great enthusiast for the people of Scotland deciding whether they liked our Union or not. They said, yes, they liked our Union. Then the people of the United Kingdom were asked whether they liked the European Union and they said they did not. So I found myself in the happy position of agreeing in two big referendums with the winning side. It is such a pity that the Scottish National party lost both and has never understood the democratic principle that it then has to accept the verdict. I was on the losing side in a former referendum; like my whole party, I was against the principle of Scottish devolution, and we got that wrong. We lost that referendum and from the day after that we did not fight it, delay it or dilute it. We said, “Yes, devolution is the wish of the Scottish people.” We got on and implemented it.

Bill Cash: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can recall this, but when that Bill was introduced by the late Donald Dewar in 1997 I put forward a proposal that the devolution settlement should be decided by a referendum of the entire UK. Perhaps it is some encouragement for him to know that despite a three-line Whip half the Conservative Back Benchers went through the Lobby behind me on that question of having a referendum for the whole UK on this devolution issue, about which he is being so extremely articulate.

John Redwood: We are probably straying a little away from the resolutions before us, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not try your patience any more. I have made my two main points, but just to summarise: we need more vision from the Government to use our power to tax in our own way, because our current tax system is ill fitting and not yet geared to promoting that recovery we want —we need greater simplicity, lower taxes and a lower incidence of taxes to get that recovery going; and we need reassurances from the Government that sovereignty is not something one can bargain away or compromise over, but is fundamental. We either have a free trade agreement between an independent UK and the EU, which is our preferred model, or we have no deal. It is as simple as that. The choice is theirs.

Anthony Browne: It is a great honour to speak after my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and hear his impassioned plea for a vision about life in Britain after Brexit. Let me say one thing on that. In my one year here in Parliament, I have spent a lot of time working on different bits of legislation about what life will be like after Brexit. For example, the Environment Bill sets out a whole new framework, one far more ambitious than the EU’s, to preserve the environment, and the Agriculture Bill removes the totally discredited common agricultural policy, which I would like to see any Opposition Members support, and replaces it with a new regime in the UK that is fit for purpose.
I am the proud product of the EU and its internal market; I am half Norwegian, part Irish, part French, with extended family in Italy and Denmark. I have also been engaged in European politics for about 20 years. I was Europe correspondent for The Times, living in Brussels for three years. I was in charge of all the EU funding in London during the Prime Minister’s first term as Mayor of London. As chief executive of the British Bankers’ Association, I led all the negotiations for Britain’s biggest export industry in the European Commission, Council and Parliament, with meetings up to and including Jean-Claude Juncker. So I have had a ringside seat at many European negotiations, and we all know that they are part showmanship, part brinkmanship. Everything is always left to the last minute, and for a very good reason—this picks up on the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson)—which is that we are negotiating with 27 different countries and they all have differing interests. A lot of them have a vested interest in trying to leave everything to the very last moment. I have sat through many Council meetings and summits where things went to not just to one minute to midnight, but several hours past it.

Alan Brown: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman tried to do the whole “oven-ready deal was to do with the withdrawal agreement”, which we know is a fudge. If this is so complicated, as he highlights just now, with 27 other countries involved, what does he say about the former International Trade Secretary, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who said that a free trade agreement with the EU would be the “easiest in human history”? How does the hon. Gentleman conflate or twist that?

Anthony Browne: I never thought that it would be a really easy negotiation. It was clearly going to be complicated, and the Government have been negotiating in good faith.
Another thing I have noticed from EU negotiations is that there are many different negotiations happening in parallel, and virtually no one knows what is going on. In fact, no one really knows what is going on apart from the people in the negotiating room, and often the people in the negotiating room do not know what is going on, because there is some ambush being plotted somewhere else that then slips into the negotiations. We have to trust our negotiating team. They are the only ones with the insight and knowledge of what is going on to be able to make judgments about when an issue should be pushed, when to play hard ball and when to turn up the charm.
That brings me back to the “notwithstanding” clauses. I strongly welcome the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announcing this agreement on all the Joint Committee issues with the European Commission. That protects the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, and it will protect peace in Northern Ireland.
Those “notwithstanding” clauses were needed only in case the Joint Committee did not reach agreement. It has reached agreement, and therefore those clauses are not needed. The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South said that the damage is done, but it is not. Often in negotiations, we need to play hard ball to get an agreement. It is entirely plausible that if we had not had those clauses, this agreement would not have been reached. We have that agreement, and the whole House should welcome it.
But it’s not all over till it’s over. We do not have the trade deal yet. There are still negotiations going on. I hope that we do get a trade deal, as I think the whole House does; very few people do not want that. It is very much in both sides’ interests that we get an agreement. It is in President Macron’s interest as well. I would not like to see him have to tell his entire fishing industry that it is about to lose 100% of its access to British fishing waters. Until we have a trade deal, the Government have to negotiate for all the different scenarios of having or not having a trade deal. We do not have to legislate for the Joint Committee not reaching an agreement, because it has done so. Therefore, we do not need those “notwithstanding” clauses in the Bill.
The Government have an absolute duty to ensure the integrity of the UK and its internal market and to do everything they can to ensure as much continuity as possible for businesses affected by this. The Government have an absolute obligation to the people of Northern Ireland—I speak as someone with a lot of family in Northern Ireland—to ensure that they have unfettered access to the UK in all circumstances. There must be no tariffs on goods from Northern Ireland to GB or GB to Northern Ireland, so long as those goods are consumed in the UK.
I welcome the agreement on the Northern Ireland border, which is be welcomed, but there is still the possibility of a no-deal scenario, and there might therefore be tariffs. It would be a dereliction of the Government’s duty if they did not legislate to have a tariff regime in Northern Ireland, which is what the Bill does.
The Government have a duty to ensure as much continuity as possible for businesses. The Bill ensures continuity of administration for VAT and excise duty in Northern Ireland, so that businesses in Northern Ireland know that they will still be part of the VAT and excise duty regime in the UK.

Alan Brown: The details of the Bill have not been made clear, so I am not sure how it provides the certainty that the hon. Member is talking about.

Anthony Browne: We have been given enough information so far to know the general principles of the Bill, but we are discussing a Ways and Means motion. The Bill will be published after this, in time for Second Reading.
There are two provisions on tax evasion in the Bill that are very welcome. The first is on ensuring that VAT is paid on goods bought online from overseas. We all  know the scenario, and I am sure we have all done it: we order goods online from overseas and they are delivered through the post. The VAT payment is not made in the UK—it is often made overseas—or often not made at all. That mattered less when we were part of the EU, because we had an agreement with the EU under which VAT was charged. Following Brexit, it is even more important that we have a system where there is proper, robust payment of VAT. This is really important for high streets in Britain. The high streets in my constituency have really suffered from the coronavirus closures and lockdowns and from people moving to e-commerce. More than ever, we need a level playing field between the high streets and e-commerce, so I fully support that provision.
The second tax evasion provision is on the insurance premium tax. Again, this was less of an issue when we were in the EU. It is about whether somebody who buys insurance from other countries pays the insurance premium tax that insurance companies in the UK are required to pay. We had an assistance agreement with the EU to ensure that EU insurance companies paid that insurance premium tax. At the end of the transition period, that comes to an end, and this provision fills that gap, so I very much welcome it. This Bill is absolutely necessary. It would be a dereliction of the Government’s duty to ensure the integrity of the UK if we did not pass it, and I fully commend it.

Sammy Wilson: I note that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) talked of being part French, part Norwegian and part Irish—he had other bits as well that I did not quite pick up. Can I assure him that I am 100% British and want to remain 100% British? I have taken the stance I have against the withdrawal agreement, and the approach that people have taken to it, because it diminishes my Britishness.
I am not quite clear what is in the legislation that the Minister is introducing today, and I am even less clear now, because, according to the statement issued by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at lunch time, whatever is in the Bill today, some of it will not be in it tomorrow. As far as I am concerned, the parts that are important seek to manage the parts of the withdrawal agreement that are damaging to the Northern Ireland economy and to the internal market of the United Kingdom, which are underpinned by the Act of Union. Those are the important parts for me. It seems that they might well be removed from the Bill before it even gets to the Floor, or certainly they will not be exercised.
Why do I believe that protections are needed? The withdrawal agreement intervenes and undermines many parts of the Northern Ireland economy. It also damages the Northern Ireland economy’s relationship with the biggest market for Northern Ireland businesses, which is the market in Great Britain. It interrupts the supply of goods from the main source of the supplies that we receive in Northern Ireland, right down to basic foodstuffs, the equipment required by manufacturers and the parts required by producers in Northern Ireland who then export their goods across the world. The withdrawal agreement seriously undermines that and the interpretation of the withdrawal agreement by the EU even goes beyond what the agreement said and what the Government expected from the agreement.
Let me give just one example: goods at risk. According to article 5 of the protocol, exemptions could be made, determined on the basis of
“the final destination and use of the good; the nature and the value of the good; the nature of the movement; and the incentive for undeclared onward-movement into the Union, in particular incentives resulting from duties payable pursuant to paragraph 1.”
Yet despite the fact that some goods clearly do not present a risk under any of those criteria, the EU was insisting up until this week—I do not know what has happened at the Joint Committee; we will hear from the Minister tomorrow—that even supermarket goods brought from GB to Northern Ireland for shops that did not even have outlets in the Republic would be regarded as goods at risk. Goods that had been freely consumed across the EU for the last 40 years, made in GB, from which nobody died of poisoning or had their health affected, were no longer acceptable.

Kevin Hollinrake: The right hon. Gentleman is making some very good points.He is clearly saying that the European Union is being difficult in these negotiations. Is he therefore surprised that there was not one word of criticism for the EU’s role in the negotiations from the SNP or the official Opposition?

Sammy Wilson: No, I am not, and the reason for that is that from the day that the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, the cheerleaders for the EU have been those sitting on the Opposition Benches—apart from the Members from my own party. At every stage, it has almost been as if the EU had its representatives sitting in this Parliament. The Labour party in particular suffered from that, because many of its patriotic supporters asked, “What kind of representation are we getting, where these people are seeking to undermine our country, rather than uphold our sovereignty and the result of the free vote that the people of the United Kingdom undertook in the referendum?”

John Redwood: Did the right hon. Gentleman note that when I intervened on Labour and SNP Members to invite them to support just something in the current UK negotiating position, they could not bring themselves to support a single thing that this country wants from the negotiations?

Sammy Wilson: Again, that does not surprise me, because most Members on the Opposition Benches wish, first, that the referendum had never happened; secondly, that the result had not been as it was; and thirdly, that they could find some Machiavellian way to undermine it, as they have been doing for the last number of years. It is unfortunate that we are in the position that we are partly because the EU knows that there are people in this Parliament who will undermine the Government’s negotiating position. That, of course, makes it more difficult for the Government to negotiate. I do not give that as a justification for some of the things that the Government have agreed to in the withdrawal agreement, whether they relate to Northern Ireland or to the impact on the rest of the United Kingdom; to me, the withdrawal agreement is poison that will infect any future trade arrangements that we might get with the EU.
The point that I am making is that protections are needed because the EU has taken the withdrawal agreement. Even where the agreement does give some latitude to  allow the internal market of the United Kingdom not to be disrupted and the economy of Northern Ireland not to be undermined, the EU has refused to give that interpretation. In fact, it has done the exact opposite and looked for the most draconian interpretation of the agreement. Only last Friday, the EU insisted that anyone travelling from GB to Northern Ireland would have to have their personal baggage searched to ensure that they were not taking any contraband into Northern Ireland, despite the fact that article 5 of the Northern Ireland protocol states that the “nature and value” of the goods should be considered.
I hope that the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) can understand that when she and the Labour party table amendments such as the one she moved today, saying that the withdrawal agreement must be guarded and protected at all costs, she is in effect saying, “We put the value of this piece of paper above the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.” This is putting that piece of paper above the interests of the people of Northern Ireland to have the range of goods that they want and at the best prices, and above the interests of businesses that export from Northern Ireland to GB. In effect, that is what her amendment says.
I am even more amazed that any representative from Northern Ireland dares to put their name to that amendment. I wonder what the consumers and businesses in their constituency think about somebody who values protection of the EU, and an agreement that the EU has with the UK, above the interests of their constituents.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Republic of Ireland’s interests with regards to Northern Ireland are many times predatory in terms of our businesses? They wish to stifle the competition that exists on the island and to stifle the thrifty economy of Northern Ireland. They have done so in many ways and the withdrawal agreement gives them further opportunity to do that.

Sammy Wilson: Yes, the worrying thing is that, with the withdrawal agreement in place, Northern Ireland is subject to laws made in Europe—laws into which the Irish Republic will have an input; laws into which, because we have left, the UK will have no input; laws into which Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly will have no input. We are at the mercy of those who wish to engage in this predatory behaviour and use EU legislation to damage Northern Ireland.
That is why the protections are needed. The protections that I would like to see in the Bill—unfortunately, it appears the Government are prepared to withdraw the protections before they have even introduced the Bill—would apply where the EU insists that goods that come into Northern Ireland have tariffs and would have tariffs imposed on them if they were going into the EU. That barrier should not be in place. Northern Irish consumers and businesses which bring in goods that will clearly be sold and consumed in Northern Ireland should not have to pay those taxes. I heard what the Minister said. It appears that, even with the Bill, he is not ruling that out. If I noted him correctly, he said that there would be a waiver where tariffs are incurred that should not have been incurred. He is almost admitting that, in the Bill that he has introduced, there will be provision to repay those tariffs. However, producers in Northern Ireland  will find themselves in a situation where they have to pay EU tariffs, prove that the goods on which they paid the tariffs did not go into the EU, and then get the money back.
That presents a number of problems. First, the trade itself is not free. Secondly, the business that has to pay the tax has a cash-flow issue. Thirdly, there are additional administrative costs involved in proving that some of the goods on which it paid tax did not leave Northern Ireland. If there is anything that will put a chill on trade between GB and Northern Ireland, it is that. I am concerned—perhaps the Minister in his response will be able to give me some comfort—that the Bill, even though it will carry some protections, still does not give that absolute protection for businesses in Northern Ireland because of the terms of the protocol. I could provide many other examples of the EU’s draconian interpretation of the Bill. Someone who takes their pets from GB to Northern Ireland would be affected, or someone going on holiday there. Someone taking their pet from Northern Ireland to a dog show in Scotland will now have to have a pet passport, a rabies vaccination, and all the documentation surrounding that—probably about £400 a trip, yet we are part of the United Kingdom.
That is why protections are needed. I implore the Minister—I know what has been said in the statement today—not to remove the notwithstanding clauses in the Bill until it is sure that the issues that are likely to arise have been dealt with properly, because we have not even seen the detail of the particular things that have been agreed.
In conclusion, it is a pity that we do not have the detail of this Bill today. It is a pity that we do not have the assurances. I note what the Minister said about the VAT regime, which is that Northern Ireland businesses will remain under the UK VAT regime. That is true, but what he failed to say was that, as a result of the Bill, they will not also remain under the EU VAT regime. Article 8 of the Northern Ireland protocol makes it clear that we will and that has all kinds of implications. We have to have two different VAT systems. We have to have different means of VAT recording. Will we be subject to the EU conditions when it comes to VAT exemptions, or the various tiers of VAT rates? Will the EU exemptions for small businesses apply to Northern Ireland—the €85,000 or whatever it is—so that small businesses find themselves caught in a net that they would not have found themselves caught in had we been truly under the UK VAT system? It is not enough to say that we will remain under the UK VAT system. The important thing is: will we be exempt from article 8 of the protocol as a result of the measures in the Bill?
Those are the kind of issues that people in Northern Ireland are looking for. Traders in Northern Ireland—people who sell used cars, for example—will now be subject to EU rules. It used to be that they incurred only the marginal VAT rate, on the profit made on the car. Now the VAT rate will apply to the whole price of the car, putting up the price of second-hand cars for people in Northern Ireland. They will be paying above what they would pay if they lived in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Perhaps in his summing up, the Minister can let us know whether the Government are addressing any of those issues, because those are the issues that concern   my constituents and those are the issues that stem from this protocol. That is why this protocol is poisonous to the internal market of the United Kingdom.

Andrew Jones: It is always a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). He is one of the most effective and passionate communicators in this Chamber and, if nothing else today, he has reminded the Labour party that there are two sides in a negotiation.
We have had a very wide-ranging debate so far, some of it even on the ways and means resolutions. Should these actually come to a vote later this evening—we have had some apocalyptic language used, but apocalyptic language does not always follow through into actually voting—I will be supporting them, because we must make sure that preparations are in place for the end of the transition period. This Bill is a part of that, which is why these resolutions should pass. This Bill is also a part of ensuring that we are legally prepared for the different outcomes that could flow from the negotiations, this work in progress. We do not know what it will say, but I just want to put it on the record again that I hope we will have a deal along the free trade lines already agreed.
The Bill is also about ensuring that we have smooth continuity of business. Of the six measures, three deal with Northern Ireland and the protocol. There are colleagues in this House more focused on the detail of Northern Ireland policy than me. I just want to say that I view Northern Ireland as a really important part of the United Kingdom. I want to see the continuity of trade operate smoothly and effectively across all four parts of our United Kingdom, and I am pleased that the Government have made the obligation to the people of Northern Ireland about continued unfettered access to the UK under all circumstances.
I will not add anything further to the contributions on Northern Ireland. Those measures have been talked about in this debate already and very articulately. There are three other measures, which are reforms to the wider tax system. The most significant is the new model treatment for VAT on goods arriving into the UK from overseas. Basically, the collection of VAT will move from the existing arrangements on to the overseas seller or the online marketplace where the sale transaction occurred, making the collection of VAT easier and ensuring a more level playing field, especially for the UK high street. Businesses on every high street in the country have been having a rough time for many years, and one reason for that is the rise of internet shopping. Many businesses have a physical and digital offer—both bricks and clicks—making themselves available to customers through whichever purchase route they choose. These businesses pay VAT and will be unfairly undercut if overseas businesses are allowed to make VAT-free sales. This measure will tackle non-compliance. I understand that similar measures are in place in other parts of the world and, indeed, that the EU is introducing something similar.
The fifth measure is about tackling tax evasion in the insurance sector so that HMRC can prevent tax evasion whether an insurer is based in the UK or not—basically it is the power to issue a liability notice irrespective  of location. That is part of the creation of a level playing field for UK businesses, just as the previous measure was. The last measure is very technical in nature, dealing with taxation implications from legacy state aid decisions. All I can say is that as I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister is on the case. This measure was perhaps designed for specialists.
Overall, the continuity of seamless trade across the UK is critical for us all. The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill has that at its core. That principle is maintained in this Bill, alongside the measures for a level playing field, which is why I shall support it.

Drew Hendry: This debate has been far more entertaining than I imagined it would be at the start. We have seen some real squirming on the Government Benches, particularly from the Minister and some unsettled Members who have steadfastly supported Brexit for quite some time. One of the best pieces of gymnastics I have heard today has been from the Government Bench: it has to be the rejection of the idea of the Prime Minister’s oven-ready deal. It reminded me of William Hughes Mearns, who said—well, he didn’t; I am reimagining—“Yesterday upon the table, they had a deal that wasn’t there. It wasn’t there again today. Oh, how they wish that deal would go away.”
The Minister said at the start of the debate that he was not even briefed on his own Government’s announcement; he did not know the news coming through that affected what we are debating.

Jesse Norman: As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, I said no such thing. In fact, I responded and outlined the relevance of the statement to the speech and the debate. What I said was that I had no privileged access, since I am not myself a member of the committee that discussed this item, but that the Minister concerned would be coming to the Chamber to discuss it tomorrow.

Drew Hendry: Hansard will confirm whether or not he said he was not sighted on the Government’s announcement this afternoon. Even if we take him at his word, he comes here woefully ill prepared to tell us what might be in the Bill; he can tell us some things that will not be in there because of that announcement this afternoon, but he cannot tell us what will be in there. We are none the wiser as to what might be in the detail, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) so forensically went through earlier. He could have given a lot more detail on the issues that will be affected. We just do not know what is going to come forward. It is not clear. It is good to know that the lawbreaking clauses that might have been contained in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill will no longer be contained in this Bill. Of course, they should never have been in this Bill or the internal market Bill. While we welcome their going, that situation should never have occurred in the first place.
The Minister talked about giving confidence and certainty and meeting the commitments to the people of Northern Ireland, but there are still serious issues for the supply chain. It is a dry term, “the supply chain”,  but it has direct effects on people’s lives. It means goods, food and essentials being available to people’s families and, of course, to sustain businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) talked earlier about the evidence given to his Committee about systems that were simply not in place. The Minister cannot claim that access will be unfettered in those circumstances, because even with a low deal, there is a clear probability of critical shortages and delays. People’s lives will be affected, in some cases severely, amid what is, let us not forget, a global pandemic.
The Northern Ireland Retail Consortium has naturally welcomed the news today, but it points out that there are still major problems ahead, as is the case in Scotland. It has published new research from its Brexit working group showing that the majority of businesses could not and will not be prepared in time. They include food producers such as those in the Northern Ireland meat industry.
We have also heard from the Road Haulage Association. It has to be said—a former Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), is sitting across from me just now—that the association has been raising concerns about this, year after year. It has known what is coming in logistical challenges. Even with a deal there will be delays, and delays mean shortages, so spare a thought for the Road Haulage Association. It should have been central to the Government’s planning. Its members are the experts on logistics; they are the people who know on a day-to-day basis what needs to be done, yet they have been ignored by this Government pretty much all the way through, save for some platitudes and some “There, there, things will be okay” comments. Those people should have been at the heart of these preparations.
It is rare for me to agree with anything that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has to say, but I have to agree with him that what we are being asked to debate today is impossibly vague. As far as I can see, the Ways and Means resolution in its present form, even after the Government’s announcement today, still contradicts the withdrawal agreement. So unless the Minister can clarify that that is not the case, we will have to assume that it is still the case at hand. Northern Ireland, like Scotland, never voted for this Brexit shambles, yet families and businesses there will both feel the effect.
The Minister said earlier that it was inappropriate to say that the Tories had sold devolution down the river. Well, apart from being tellingly sensitive, he has obviously also not been sighted on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill clauses that still remain. People in Scotland are not daft. They see what this Government are doing. They see what is going on, and that is why, soon, they will choose to take their own place in their own future with an independent nation.

Shaun Bailey: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate today. I have been listening to the debate from the start with some interest, and there have certainly been some vigorous contributions. I must say that I was presented with some hope by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) when he spoke to the actual motions. I was nearly aghast, because for me this debate has felt a bit like groundhog day, to be honest.
Twelve months ago, like all of us in this House, I was out there pounding the streets in my constituency, 70% of which had voted to leave the European Union. There had been a Labour MP there for some 90 years. I was there as grown men were breaking down and crying on their doorsteps because everything they believed in had been completely betrayed and abandoned. They had been told that they did not understand what they had voted for, that they had no comprehension of the impact of what they had done, and that as a result, they did not really deserve to have their voices heard. That is why I am here today; it is because of how they felt.
I will now get to the core of the motions. Hon. and right hon. Members have talked in much depth, and I want to talk about the VAT implications, particularly for my retailers, and about motion 4 on the Order Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made a very detailed interrogation of these regulations, and he was right. This is about ensuring that our high streets, our domestic retailers, can have a balanced playing field as we move forward.
These regulations are needed either way, because we have to accept the fact that we have left the EU and that on 1 January we will have a new relationship, whatever that looks like. My constituents, leave or remain, want a deal. They want to ensure that this is done. There is no denial about that. We want to get this done in the right way. We want that consistency; we want to ensure that traders can carry on. I represent an area that has a significant manufacturing and advanced engineering base. We want to be sure that our manufacturers and engineers can still have access to those markets, that it can be done in the right way and that they know where they are and where they stand.
I completely stand with the Government in their commitment to ensuring that we get there, but, as right hon. and hon. Members have said, it is a historical fact, which we know from previous negotiations such as these, that they go to the eleventh hour, and political bluster and back and forth often characterises them. I am absolutely behind the Government in their attempts to ensure that we get that deal, because my manufacturers and my businesses need it.
Coming back to the point on VAT, which has been raised consistently throughout this debate, we have seen the impact of the covid-19 pandemic, and let us just for a moment remember what we are talking about with these motions. We are talking about real people. We are talking about their livelihoods. We are talking about how they provide for their families.
It might seem quite abstract when we talk about ways and means resolutions and what they mean, because at their heart is the technical and administrative way in which revenue is raised. They are very technical motions, and I do not think they are going to garner a wide audience at five minutes past 5 in the afternoon—although we never know; some of the speeches today have certainly garnered some interest. However, at the core, this is about those individuals we are here to represent, about those families, and about ensuring that businesses, particularly on our high streets—as right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken to these motions have stated—are able to carry on. As we come through this period into next year, it will be vital to ensure that we can have communities that thrive again and that we get beyond this.
The fact is that life is going to move on. We are going to have to go into 2021 and carry on with our lives. We will have to move forward, whatever our nation looks like; I appreciate there are divergent views across the House on how that will look in one way or another, but we must ensure that we can function, that our constituents can carry on with their lives and that business can carry on, and that is what these motions are about. At their heart is the practicality of ensuring that we can raise revenue, that we can follow through those taxes and that our VAT system works.
To pick up a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) made, we have real potential now, with our VAT freedoms coming back to us, to do some really innovative things. A prime example would be zero VAT on sanitary products; that has been a huge campaign, and I pay tribute to the people involved in it. That is something that we can ensure carries on. Equally, on digital books and services, we can ensure that, in areas such as mine with some of the highest levels of child deprivation, we close the digital gap and ensure that educational opportunities are there.
People might think that these things are minutiae and that they are abstract compared with everyday life, but they are not. They are at its core. We do not hear about them and we do not talk about them often, but they are there and they have an impact on every single one of our communities, from Princes End in my constituency to Aberdeen, Broadland, Harrogate—even Doncaster, Madam Deputy Speaker. They have an impact on everyone.
We talk about the importance of these resolutions and why we must get them through, and that is about ensuring that ultimately, as we move forward, we can operate a tax system that is efficient and that can carry on and that, as we look forward to 2021, as life goes on beyond these debates that have plagued us now for four and a half years and as we finally respect the decision that was taken by 70% of my constituents in 2016, we can do so in an efficient way that works for everyone. I will be supporting these resolutions today, and I commend my right hon. Friend the Minister for bringing them forward.

Kevin Hollinrake: I add my comments to those of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), with his optimistic tone. I, too, am optimistic about the future; despite the fact that I have never looked at Brexit through rose-tinted spectacles, I have never argued that this country cannot succeed economically outside the European Union. I welcome some of the measures in this proposed Bill, particularly on creating a fairer and more level playing field for our small and medium-sized enterprises—I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Before talking about that, however, I would like to talk about the national interest. I think it was Churchill who said that in our parliamentary duties we should put country first, constituency second and party third, yet all I have heard from the Opposition and the SNP today is putting their party interests first.

Alison Thewliss: What the hon. Gentleman is missing is that we have a different definition of nation, and our interpretation of Scotland’s national interest is quite different from the UK’s national interest that he sees.

Kevin Hollinrake: I have heard quite a lot the argument that Scotland did not vote to leave the European Union, but that is not how the votes were added up. This was a national, United Kingdom vote. Those were the terms of the referendum, which were voted for in this House. That is how the entire nation voted, and we are leaving the European Union. Some of us will be less happy about that than others, but nevertheless, that is what we are instructed to do and what we should do.
For the Opposition, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) said time and again that the Government were irresponsible in these negotiations. Can I just remind her that there are two sides to this negotiation? There are two sides, and I would ask which side she is on, because she is not representing the national interests in the way she is discussing these matters and blaming the Government for being in this position at this stage. Of course—and I am in business today—every business in this land would have liked the situation to be done and dusted last June, as we had hoped. However, there are two sides to this negotiation, and it has to be said that the European Union has been difficult in these negotiations.
If the hon. Lady does not believe my words about that, she should listen to one of the most reliable commentators on her Benches, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), in his speech on 14 September. He was talking about the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, and he said that
“I have to say that I have some sympathy with the Government’s argument: exit summary declarations should not be required for goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB. When Wrightbus sells one of its wonderful buses to a transport operator in the UK, why is the form needed and what is the EU going to do with the form?”
On goods at risk, he said that
“surely it is possible to reach a pragmatic solution, because a lorry load of goods destined for a supermarket in Belfast can hardly be described as being at risk of entering the European Union.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 64.]
Yet those are some of the matters that the European Union was negotiating on or on which it was trying to negotiate hardball.
I ask again: who does the hon. Lady think, and who does the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for the SNP think, is being difficult in this negotiation? Is it purely the United Kingdom? Of course it is not. Why are there no words of criticism for the European Union’s position and for leaving it this late before agreeing what should be a simple trade deal to arrange and negotiate? It has negotiated similar trade deals with many other countries around the world, and we start from a similar position with our regulations and customs duties.

James Cartlidge: Identical.

Kevin Hollinrake: From an identical position. This should have been an easy trade negotiation, but of course it is not, for the reasons that we know. Of course, there is politics behind this negotiation, and the politics in this place should be united on one side, in the UK’s national interests, but they are not. Too often, Opposition Members have represented the European Union’s negotiating position in these negotiations.

Stephen Flynn: Of course, it was the United Kingdom Government who were threatening to break international law. Does he have any similar examples from the European Union, or is it simply a one-way street as far as he is concerned?

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Member makes a fair point, but I would point him back to the political declaration, which sat alongside the withdrawal agreement, within which there were clear commitments from the European Union to agree an ambitious free trade agreement. He must accept, as commentators on that side of the fence—on the Opposition Benches—have also said, that it is clear the European Union has been difficult in these negotiations, and more difficult than perhaps many had anticipated. It is clearly in the European Union’s interests and their constituents’ interests to agree a free trade deal without this kind of last-minute drama.

Shaun Bailey: On that point, I am sure my hon. Friend will, like me, have seen in the press German car manufacturers begging the German Government and saying, “We’ve got to get this done. The European Union has got to get it done.” Equally, French fishermen have been doing the same with President Macron. Surely our European cousins and partners get this—that it is a bilateral thing that the European Union needs to do—but why do the Opposition seem not to get that? Perhaps he could enlighten me.

Kevin Hollinrake: Of course, the European Union is negotiating in its interests and is obviously trying to protect its interests in that negotiation, but one thing the European Union has done much better than we have on this side of the channel is negotiate with one voice. In this place, we have not—we absolutely have not—and that has undermined the UK’s negotiating position. If the Opposition think that the European Union does not hear what this place says, that is clearly a naive position. If the Opposition think that the European Union does not hear what this place says, that is clearly a naive position. I would argue, at this very late stage, that we work together, cross-party, to try to bring about a situation where we can get the free trade agreement that we all know is possible and can be delivered within the timescale we have left.

Alison Thewliss: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point about working cross-party. We entered into this in the spirit of cross-party working. The Scottish Government put forward constructive proposals on cross-party working that the UK Government rejected. For a long time during this process, it has been his own party that has been undermining his Government’s negotiating position. Does he not accept that that has been part of the problem?

Kevin Hollinrake: No, I do not. The UK Government have to take a number of matters into consideration. They have a collective position. Clearly, we cannot always get exactly what we want in terms of negotiation. My point is that we could have done better in these negotiations and there could have been less drama around them. The fact that these negotiations are concluding so close to the deadline for businesses has been brought about partly because of the divided nature of this Parliament. The hon. Lady and the Opposition should take responsibility for that position.
My point about a fair and level playing field is about the fact that many of our small businesses in the UK compete with online platforms—online marketplaces, as they are called—such as Amazon and eBay. How can it be right that for so long many of those small businesses have been competing at a 20% disadvantage? Many retailers selling into the UK are not paying VAT on those sales. I am pleased that the Government have acted on this and closed the loophole. They have closed a number of loopholes in recent years through measures such as the digital services tax and the diverted profits tax. This creates the fairer and more level playing field for the rest that I very much welcome. There is one more loophole that we could close, not in this legislation, but in the Financial Services Bill, which is going through Parliament at the same time.
Country-by-country reporting would also have a profound effect in closing loopholes that some companies are using to divert profits out of this country.

Jerome Mayhew: The Government are making an important point in this Bill in starting to look at online retailers facilitating the sale and that is making a difference, particularly with international trade. Does my hon. Friend agree that this should be expanded beyond just VAT into things like the extent of producer responsibility and other aspects of international trade?

Kevin Hollinrake: Yes, I do. We all know that the best way of driving down prices and driving service for our consumers—our citizens—is through a free, competitive marketplace. Our job, wherever we can, is to let that marketplace do its work. Our job is also to make sure that it sits on a fair and level playing field. My hon. Friend, in talking about regulation for some of the retailers—some of the UK businesses but not businesses abroad—makes a very sound point that the Government should consider.
Going back to country-by-country reporting, let me give an example. Google’s turnover in the UK is about £10 billion. We can work that out by extrapolating certain figures from a couple of years ago. Internationally, it declared a 22% profit margin, which means a £2.2 billion profit in the UK. Based on corporation tax at 19%, it should pay £420 million in tax on that. Last year it actually paid £67 million in tax. That cannot be a fair and level playing field for other UK retailers or other UK companies that compete against Google, particularly in terms of advertising space—many of our regional papers, for example. I would like the Government to bring forward legislation, in some vehicle or other, to tackle that issue.
I am very pleased that this loophole is being closed and I very much commend the principles and the outline of the legislation that we will see tomorrow.

Bridget Phillipson: It is extraordinary that we have not yet had sight of the Bill and that all we have is a single sheet of A4, just 23 days until the end of the transition period. The Minister did not offer much this afternoon other than to merely say he regarded Opposition amendment (a) as unnecessary. I regret that our trust in the Government’s promises and assurances has run rather thin this autumn. In the absence of the publication of formal texts, I have not been persuaded by the Minister’s arguments this afternoon.

Jesse Norman: This has been a very wide-ranging and interesting debate, and we have heard some diverse voices. I was particularly interested, as I am sure the House was, to see the knights of Maastricht swinging a leg as they get into the saddle once more and go into battle—always an interesting sight. I thank the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for reminding us that this is a complex and difficult process. It is not straightforward to negotiate with another party at the same time as seeking to make legislation, and we recognise that.
I want to quickly pick up on a couple of the points that arose in the debate. I rather differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) in thinking of this as the most important constitutional moment since 1688. I might respectfully offer the Act of Union 1707 or even the Act of Union 1801 as possible alternatives.
Imagination in tax is of great interest to the Treasury, but that must come after the transition period has ended and we have regained this full measure of sovereignty. That is the moment to think about these issues in the wide way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) described. This is a technical matter of putting into place the requirements for us to leave in as orderly a way as possible.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), on classically robust form, rightly highlighted the lack of balance in this debate relating to the European Union, and I thank him for that. I remind the hon. Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) that the rules as they stand were that all goods going into Northern Ireland were to be considered at risk. The “notwithstanding” clauses were designed to protect us against that transparently absurd outcome, which would have had the effect that a bag of salad brought in for sale in a Northern Ireland supermarket was considered an at-risk good and was therefore treated on that basis. That cannot be right. In advancing the “notwithstanding” clauses, the Government were seeking a perfectly sensible and proper readjustment to the situation. I am delighted that those clauses have been withdrawn, and with that good message, I commend these motions to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 360.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That provision (including provision imposing and regulating new duties of customs) may be made in connection with goods in Northern Ireland and their movement into and out of Northern Ireland (whether the movement begins or ends in Great Britain or elsewhere).

Value added tax (ERICs etc)  (Ways and Means)

Resolved,
That provision may be made—
(a) about European Research Infrastructure Consortia in connection with value added tax,
(b) amending section 9A of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and Part 3 of the Value Added Tax (Place of Supply of Goods) Order 2004 (supplies of gas, electricity, heating and cooling),
(c) for and in connection with the repeal of Schedule 4B to that Act (call-off stock arrangements),
(d) amending section 18A of that Act (fiscal warehousing), and
(e) amending paragraph 114(2) of Schedule 8 to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018.

Rate of fuel duty on aviation gasoline (Ways and Means)

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending section 6(1A)(aa) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979.

Value added tax (online sales by overseas persons and low value importations) (Ways and Means)

Resolved,
That provision may be made for the purposes of value added tax in cases involving—
(a) supplies of goods by persons established outside the United Kingdom that are facilitated by online marketplaces, or
(b) the importation into the United Kingdom of goods of a low value.

Insurance premium tax (liability of insured) (Ways and Means)

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending section 65 of the Finance Act 1994.

Controlled foreign companies (recovery of unlawful state aid) (Ways and Means)

Resolved,
That provision may be made in connection with Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1352 of 2 April 2019 on the state aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning the CFC Group Financing Exemption.
Ordered, That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing Resolutions;
That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Alok Sharma, Michael Gove, Steve Barclay, Jesse Norman, John Glen and Kemi Badenoch introduce the Bill.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill

Presentation and First Reading
Jesse Norman accordingly presented a Bill to make provision (including the imposition and regulation of new duties of customs) in connection with goods in Northern Ireland and their movement into or out of Northern Ireland; to make provision amending certain enactments relating to value added tax, excise duty or insurance premium tax; to make provision in connection with the recovery of unlawful state aid in relation to controlled foreign companies; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 227).

Business of the House

Ordered,
That notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee in respect of the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before it has been read a second time.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Eleanor Laing: As the House has just agreed, amendments and new clauses to be moved in Committee of the Whole of House may now be tabled. Hon. Members should table through the Public Bill Office inbox, which is pbohoc@parliament.uk. They should not attempt to hand in amendments and new clauses to the Table in the Chamber due to the current situation of the pandemic.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6) and Order, 26 November,

Financial Assistance to Industry

That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, sums exceeding £30 million and up to a total of £300 million in respect of compensation for indirect costs of the UK Emissions Trading System or the Carbon Emissions Tax and Carbon Price Support mechanism in each  case to British Steel Ltd; Celsa Manufacturing (UK) Ltd; CF Fertilisers UK Ltd; DS Smith Paper Ltd; INEOS Chemical Grangemouth Ltd; INEOS ChlorVinyls Ltd; Kimberly Clark Ltd; Outokumpu Stainless Ltd; Palm Paper Ltd; Runcorn MCP Ltd; SABIC UK Petrochemicals Ltd; Tata Steel UK Ltd; and UPM-Kymmene (UK) Ltd.—(Rebecca Harris.)

The House divided: Ayes 360, Noes 16.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Social Security)

That the draft Social Security Co-ordination (Revocation of Retained Direct EU Legislation and Related Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 16 November, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Excise

That the Tobacco Products Duty (Alteration of Rates) Order 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1256), dated 12 November 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 November, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Public Health

That the Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction and Taking Control of Goods) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1290), dated 13 November 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16 November, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Waste Incinerator on Portland

Richard Drax: I hand in a petition with nearly 7,000 signatures from those who wish to stop an incinerator plant being built on the beautiful island of Portland in my constituency. Those who want to build it call it an energy recovery facility. Thousands of people disagree with that interpretation and say that it is a waste incinerator, and they do not want it on their island.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of South Dorset,
Declares that the proposal to build a waste incinerator on Portland should not go ahead and that the Government should review its support for incinerators more generally; notes that almost 7,000 people have signed a corresponding online petition to stop the waste incinerator; further declares that South Dorset is a beautiful part of the world and that it should remain a healthy place for our children, grandchildren and ourselves; further that research has shown that a waste incinerator will cause the release of tiny dangerous particles into the air; further that a waste incinerator will cause a small increase in health risks for children; further that it will bring more lorries thundering along already busy roads; further that there is a possible need for the incinerator to be “fed” in the future by waste imported from outside the UK; further that it will create a big, unsightly blot on our beautiful landscape and coast; further that it will discourage recycling; and further that it will not create many jobs for local residents.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to rethink its support for incinerators and look towards a greener, circular economy.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002634]

Petition - Drainage Works in Shiplake

John Howell: I present a petition from residents of my constituency that has now been supported by over 1,000 signatories.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Henley,
Declares that there is considerable concern about the increased impact of flooding in the village of Shiplake as a result of the actions being taken by Taylor Wimpey in relation to a development at Thames Farm; further declares that the developers are increasing the flood risk by filling in sink holes and injecting these areas with a grout-like substance to reinforce them which makes the chalk less porous; further that the developers are diverting floodwater to a brook in Flood Zone 3 in the village via a new pumping station at the north-eastern corner of the site; and notes that this petition is presented on behalf of two individuals of the village of Shiplake whose corresponding online petition has been signed by some 999 signatories.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government, in particular the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to request South Oxfordshire District Council to ask Taylor Wimpey to submit a Material Variation Application because the change in the drainage solution is such a major departure from the original approved scheme, and to encourage public consultation as part of the approval of the drainage works, and to look at the change as a material variation in application.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002636]

Alex Cunningham: On a  point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During my exchange with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) across the Dispatch Box during Justice questions this morning, the Minister claimed that the reason for the huge reduction in the number of trials in England and Wales between 2010 and 2019 was
“because crime is significantly down since 2010”.
Recorded crime, which of course drives the amount of court activity and therefore trials, has, according to the Government’s own figures, increased considerably from 4.3 million in 2010 to about 6 million this year.
The Minister should not try to hide behind the Office for National Statistics crime survey statistics, when the public at large know full well both the reality and consequences of the increased crime in our country  today. Given that reality, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister has clearly—inadvertently, I am sure—misled the House and I would be obliged if you would summon him to apologise for his mistake and to set the record straight.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but he knows very well indeed that the Chair is not responsible for what Members or indeed Ministers say in this Chamber. I suspect that the point that he has just made is not so much a point of order as a continuation of the debate and a matter of the interpretation of statistics. I am also quite sure that he has, in raising a point of order, drawn the matter to the attention of the Treasury Bench and to the Minister, whom I hope he has given notice that he was planning to mention—

Alex Cunningham: indicated dissent.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman has not given notice to the Minister that he intended to mention him.

Alex Cunningham: Apologies.

Eleanor Laing: I note the hon. Gentleman’s apology for not having done so, and I accept his apology. I can see by his demeanour that his apology is meant in good faith and that if he had remembered to inform  the Minister, I am sure he would have done. I am also quite sure that the Minister’s colleague on the Front Bench, the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), will let him know the point that has been raised. This is not a matter for the Chair and it is not a matter on which I or Mr Speaker can summon the Minister to answer, but I am quite certain that there will be other opportunities in future debates and question sessions when the hon. Gentleman can raise this very matter with the Minister again.

Arrest of Egyptian Human Rights Advocates

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Rushanara Ali: I rise to speak in support of Karim Ennarah, the husband of my constituent Jessica Kelly. I also want to highlight the widespread human rights abuses under the current Egyptian regime.
Karim Ennarah works for a human rights organisation, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. He holds a master’s degree from the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London and was a Chevening scholar. He has lots of UK connections as well as family connections.
Karim Ennarah was arrested on Wednesday 18 November by Egyptian security services at a beach café while he was on a break in Dahab on the Sinai peninsula. His colleague, Mohammed Basheer, was also arrested, on 15 November, and the director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, Gasser Abdel-Razek, was arrested in Cairo on 19 November. This follows an arrest earlier in the year of another of their colleagues.
The three arrests happened following a meeting with EIPR that was initiated by diplomats from Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland, as well as the chargés d’affaires of Canada, Norway and Sweden and the deputy ambassador of the United Kingdom. At that meeting, the diplomats and the EIPR discussed the human rights situation in Egypt.
The arrests of Karim Ennarah and his colleagues were a co-ordinated crackdown on those campaigning for human rights issues. The United Nations human rights agency called the arrests “chilling”. Karim was held without trial in the notorious Tora prison. That is a complex known for the torture of political prisoners, where the cells are designed never to see sunlight. Those who have experienced it tell of cells without beds, the denial of medical attention, floors crawling with insects, and temperatures soaring to unbearable highs before crashing to freezing cold. Political prisoners are routinely starved, beaten and abused.
On 4 December, after a global outcry and pressure on the Egyptian regime, the three were released from prison, but they remain in Egypt under close surveillance and their assets have been frozen by order of the courts. We are yet to hear whether they are being held under any other conditions, as the investigation continues to hang over them. Karim’s wife, Jessica Kelly, with support from campaigners, human rights organisations and nearly 150,000 people who signed a petition, alongside a number of celebrities, has led the global efforts to secure his release and that of his colleagues. She deserves our praise and admiration for her incredible fortitude in such trying circumstances.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this case to the main Chamber for our consideration. Does she agree that we have an obligation to use all diplomatic procedures available to  encourage those we have relationships with to treat with basic human rights those who oppose them, and that the message from this House tonight is that the way human rights are handled has a bearing on the strength of our ties with other nations that abuse human rights?

Rushanara Ali: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The strength of our partnership should be judged by the ability to provide constructive criticism to Governments who are responsible for human rights violations, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what work our Government are doing to ensure that the Egyptian Government, as well as other Governments who have been responsible for significant human rights violations, take action to bring an end to such violations.
Karim’s wife, Jessica Kelly, was instrumental in campaigning for her husband’s release and that of his colleagues. We are all relieved to hear about their release, but there are a number of outstanding issues. What matters now is that the Egyptian Government allow Karim to leave the country to come to the UK where he can be reunited with his wife. I would be grateful if the Minister provided an update on whether that will be possible and what action our embassy is taking to enable Karim to be reunited with his wife in the UK.
The men were also accused of having links to terror organisations and of spreading fake news on social media, but let us be crystal clear that they were arrested for shining the spotlight on the human rights abuses of that regime.

Daniel Zeichner: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware of the case of Giulio Regeni, the Cambridge PhD student who was researching trade unions in Cairo. He was brutally murdered five years ago. Does she agree that it is in the interests of everyone, including the Egyptian Government, that, in the end, the truth comes out and justice is done, and is seen to be done?

Rushanara Ali: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case and I could not agree with him more. It is really important that the European Union and the UK work together to ensure that such actions of the Egyptian Government are confronted, and that Giulio’s family get the justice they deserve.
Yet again, we see that repressive regimes—in this case, Egypt—behave far worse if they think the world is not watching and holding them to account. It is critical that we work with our partners to ensure that we hold Governments such as the Egyptian Government to account for human rights violations, and that action is taken to bring an end to such violations. We must ensure that we shine a spotlight—in the most aggressive way possible through diplomatic means and through our relationships—to ensure that these kinds of arbitrary arrest and detention do not happen to people who are fighting for the rights of others.
This regime came to power in 2013 in a military coup, dissolving the constitution and dismissing the opposition. Since then, there has been widespread concern about human rights violations, some of which have been raised this evening. On 14 August 2013, Egyptian security forces, under the command of General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi,  raided two camps of protesters in Cairo. Human Rights Watch described these raids and the subsequent massacres as
“one of the world’s largest killings of demonstrators in a single day in recent history”.
It also pointed to the fact that over 900 people were killed during the massacre.
Human rights activists and observers report that the regime has employed arbitrary imprisonment, torture, extrajudicial killings, home demolitions, forced disappearances and sexual violence against its opponents. The families of Egyptians abroad have been detained to stifle criticism of the Government. There are not free and fair elections; al-Sisi won the 2014 election with 97% of the vote. All this evidence of thuggery, intimidation, violence and torture makes the bravery of human rights defenders even more apparent. They are truly courageous and heroic, risking their lives to protect the rights of others. It is right that we offer them whatever support we can, and it is necessary and right that our Government do all they can to provide the support that they need.
Jessica Kelly, her family and I are grateful to the Foreign Secretary for the statement that he made immediately after the arrests, and for the representation that he and his Ministers made to their Egyptian counterparts to help to secure the release of Karim Ennarah and two of his colleagues. As I mentioned, another colleague, Patrick Zaki, remains in detention, and his term has just been extended by another 45 days by the Egyptian courts. I would be grateful if the Minister provided an update on that case and whether further representations have been made to secure his release.
I would also be grateful if the Minister told us what further representations he is making to ensure that the Egyptian Government take seriously our concerns, the UK Government’s concern and the international concerns about human rights abuses and about the wider record of the Egyptian Government on human rights violations and the culture of arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and torture of human rights defenders. Will he update the House on what efforts our Government are making, working with our European counterparts and other international partners, to apply diplomatic pressure on the Egyptian Government to ensure that these kinds of human rights violation are brought to an end?
This case was highlighted to me because the husband of a British national—my constituent—was arrested, alongside his colleagues, but for every one of those cases, there are many others that do not get the attention that they should be getting. We are all grateful to Jessica Kelly and her family, and to all those who have campaigned for the release of her husband and his two colleagues, but it is vital that our Government work with our international partners to ensure that all those who are being locked up, tortured and punished for standing up for human rights are protected. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed those concerns.

James Cleverly: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for securing this debate and to the Members who have intervened for making important points during her speech. I have  no doubt that the whole House will have welcomed the release on 3 December of three men, Mohammed Basheer, Karim Ennarah, and Gasser Abdel-Razek, from the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work she has done and the active role she has played in advocating for the men’s release. I also pay tribute to the family, friends and supporters of the three men, particularly her constituent, Jessica Kelly, who have campaigned tirelessly on their behalf and worked so hard to secure their release.
It is the eve of International Human Rights Defenders Day, and these courageous people must be allowed to carry out their work without fear of arrest or reprisal. The UK Government will stand up for human rights defenders, wherever they are.
On the specific case, although the release of the three men is welcome news, we understand that, as the hon. Lady said, the case is not yet closed. We will continue to take a close interest and to explain why we, the UK Government, think it is vital that they and the EIPR continue to play their vital role as an independent voice on human rights in Egypt. We remain concerned about the application of anti-terrorism legislation in this and other such cases. We will continue to monitor the situation closely and where we have concerns we will raise them. The hon. Lady made points about prison conditions, and we have not hesitated and will never hesitate to raise the issue of prison conditions and treatment of detainees with the Egyptian authorities whenever necessary, including in this case.
Furthermore, although I welcome the swift and positive developments in this case, I want to stress the Government’s broader commitment to human rights defenders and to the protection and promotion of human rights. Civil and political rights, including fair access to justice, must be respected in Egypt and around the world.
It is no secret that the UK wants to see better protection of human rights in Egypt. We have an ongoing dialogue with Egypt on this matter. The strength of our bilateral relations with Egypt allows us to speak frankly, and where we have concerns we always raise them. We work closely with Egypt at ministerial and official levels on a range of bilateral priorities, including trade and economic development, tourism, education and cultural co-operation. We also work together on a range of regional and global issues that matter to both our countries, including climate change, combating covid-19 and conflict resolution, including the conflict in Libya. As I say, that co-operation does give us the opportunity to speak with them on more difficult and sensitive issues, as we did in the case we are speaking about today.
The Government took swift and decisive action on the EIPR case. On 19 November, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke directly to his Egyptian counterpart to register our deep concerns about this arrest. Indeed, he was the first Foreign Minister to do so. Senior officials, including our ambassador in Cairo, continued to underline these concerns, and the British embassy in Cairo remained in regular contact throughout with the EIPR, the detainees’ lawyers and the British family of Karim Ennarah. Naturally, the UK also worked closely with international partners who shared our concern, including European partners, as the hon. Lady mentioned. In Cairo, the embassy worked closely   with like-minded partners to take joint action. In Geneva, the UK’s human rights ambassador has been active in organising briefings on the case with civil society and other like-minded states.
The UK wants to see Egypt thrive. We want better protection for Egyptians’ constitutional rights and freedom of expression, and more space for NGOs and civil society is an essential part of that. It is also in the UK’s interest to co-operate with Egypt on other issues that matter to both countries, such as strengthening trade, tackling climate change, working together to address our shared security challenges and concerns, and protecting regional stability. Trade between the UK and Egypt was worth £3.5 billion in 2019, and the association agreement that we signed on 5 December, to ensure continuity of bilateral trade after the end of the transition period on 31 December, provides a new framework to boost trade and help both countries to build back better after our fight against the covid-19 pandemic.

Rushanara Ali: As I said, I am grateful for the interventions the Foreign Secretary has made as well, and I know the family are. Will the Minister take away my point about Patrick Zaki, a colleague of Jessica’s husband, as he is still in prison? I recognise what the Minister is saying about the work that the UK Government are doing on human rights issues, but given our strong trade ties, can he reassure the House that we are not going to overlook the importance of human rights, in the interests of needing to have strong trading relationships?

James Cleverly: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, which spurs me to clarify why I made the points about the bilateral economic relationship. While making representations to the Egyptian authorities about the cases she raised, we were simultaneously working towards this closer economic partnership. I was hoping to get across that we do not regard these as mutually exclusive. We can work closely with international partners, including our partnership with Egypt, while simultaneously raising our concerns about human rights and individuals who have been incarcerated. The two go hand in hand, rather than being in contradiction to each other.
We will continue to advocate. I am concerned about the reports that Karim appears not to have been allowed to leave the country and be reunited with his wife. Human rights defenders make an essential contribution. They are important and we will continue to call on the Egyptian authorities to allow Karim to be able to conduct his work and his life unimpeded.
Therefore, the Government are totally committed to taking action to promote and protect human rights. Wherever and whenever we have concerns, we will raise them. Everywhere in the world, human rights defenders should be able to carry out their work without fear of arrest or reprisal. We welcome the release of Mohammed Basheer, Karim Ennarah and Gasser Abdel-Rasek from the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, and we expect them to be able to go unmolested from now on. We will continue to have regular and frank discussions with the Government of Egypt on human rights issues.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Mark Spencer


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
  Mark Spencer


  Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West ) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
  Gavin Robinson


  Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Jonathan Edwards


  Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Maria Caulfield


  Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Howell (Henley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
  Ian Paisley


  Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
  Patrick Grady


  Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
  Mark Spencer


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
  Tom Hunt


  Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Peter Aldous


  Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
  Stuart Andrew


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew